 |
|
| APRIL 2002 |
|
Special
State Grange Legislative Activities and Farm Bill Report!
North Carolina Grange Members Visit Washington DC
The
annual North Carolina State Grange DC Legislative Bus tour traveled to Washington
DC on April 9,10,11. The nearly 40 NC Grange members from all across the Tar Heel
State met with their 12 members of the U.S House of Representatives and two U.S.
Senator's offices for effective and informative discussions. The NC Grange members
had copies of their State Grange priority issues document as well as the National
Grange Blueprint for Rural America 2002 to hand out at each of their meetings.
At the top of the list of issues addressed by the North Carolina Grange members
were tobacco program reform, expedited passage of a new Farm Bill and permanent
repeal of the federal inheritance of "death" tax. Other events of interest on
the three day program included lunch in the Senate Caucus Room, where the famous
Senate Watergate hearings were conducted by North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin,
a visit to the home of Thomas Jefferson, in Charlottesville VA and a farewell
dinner at the historic Gadsby's Tavern in Alexandria, VA that was attended by
National Master Kermit Richardson. Special congratulations go to NC State Grange
Legislative Director David Meredith and NC State Secretary Margie Spivey for organizing
and directing another successful NC State Grange DC Legislative Bus tour.
California
Grange Letter Supports Endangered Species Reform
In a letter sent to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California,
the California State Grange expressed its strong support for H.R. 2829, the Sound
Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2001. "This bill," the letter
explained, "would make changes in current law that allows emotional, unproven
and capricious decisions regarding the listing and delisting of species." "Recent
decisions based on imperfect science", the letter went on to explain to each of
the 52 U.S. Representatives from the Golden State, "have directly and adversely
affected our [Grange] members in the Klamath Basin." "The
vital [Klamath Basin] water system that served, not only the farm families in
the basin but also provided critical habitat for wildlife in the region, was cut
off [last year] by decisions that were based on emotional, unproven and capricious
information. This fact has been supported by findings of the National Academy
of Sciences.." the letter explained. The California grange letter went on to explain
that not only the rural and farming communities of the Klamath Basin have been
struck by these economically crippling laws promulgated on inaccurate science
but the rest of California and other Western States have been devastated as well. The California
State Grange letter noted that H.R. 2829, which was introduced by Rep. Greg Walden
and currently has 39 bipartisan co-sponsors, would make sound science the basis
for future decisions affecting the preservation of endangered species. "It also
restores confidence in our government and cooperation with its citizens to protect
not only wildlife but to protect our constitutional rights as well." The California
Grange letter concluded. top
Washington
State Grange Wins Court Case Upholding "Blanket" Primary
The Washington
State Grange and the State of Washington achieved a victory for Grange members
and for voters' rights on March 27 when a U.S. District Court Judge in Tacoma,
WA upheld Washington State's blanket primary, a primary system that allows voters
to vote for any candidates of any political party in primary elections. The Washington
State Grange was responsible for passage of the blanket primary referendum in
the State of Washington in 1934.
A blanket primary is one in which all of the candidates for political office face
the voters on the same primary ballot. Voters can then vote for the candidates
of their choice regardless of the individual candidate's party affiliation. The
top vote getting candidates then usually face each other again in the general
election. Because
voters are allowed to "crossover" and vote for the candidate of their choice in
the primary, regardless of the party affiliation of those candidates, the major
political parties believe that the blanket primary system weakens their ability
to nominate and select the best candidates to represent their party in the general
election. In Washington State, the political parties argued that "blanket" primaries
are a violation of their rights of freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution.
So the political parties brought suit against the State of Washington's blanket
primary in federal district court. The political parties argued that forcing them
to accept the judgment of non-party affiliated voters in the selection of their
candidates for public office would be somewhat like saying that local Farm Bureau
members should have a "right" to vote for the officers of their local Grange,
even if they are not Grange members and do not support the goals of the Grange.
Last year, the political parties won a similar federal court challenge to the
blanket primary system in California.
However,
the Washington State Grange intervened in the federal suit to defend the constitutionality
of the blanket primary on behalf of the State of Washington and on behalf of the
rights of individual Grange members to cast their ballots without disclosing their
political party affiliation. "Part of constitutional protection is the right of
each voter to participate in the primary without disclosing his or her party affiliation,"
said State Grange Attorney Jim Johnson. "If the blanket primary is replaced, party
ballots would violate voters' absolute secrecy in elections." The federal judge
agreed, noting in his opinion that Grange members' "First Amendment rights as
a non-partisan association advance their political interests best in this system
allowing them to vote for candidates from either party." The
Grange also successfully argued that election laws in Washington are different
from California because while California voters are asked to declare a party affiliation
under state law, Washington voters are not. The federal judge ruled that the "Secretary
of State and the Grange have demonstrated that Washington's blanket primary is
a constitutional exercise of the State's power to regulate elections, as they
have shown that the political parties have failed to come forth with sufficient
evidence to prove the blanket primary's unconstitutionality."
"The
vision of the Grange to preserve the rights of voters has lasted 67 years," said
Washington State Grange Master Terry Hunt. "As long as political parties attack
the blanket primary, the Grange will defend the people's right to choose their
candidates."
top Farm
Bill Conference Committee Finishes Work on New Farm Program
Last week,
and none too soon for many farmers waiting to make planting decisions, the US
House of Representatives and US Senate, with input from the Bush Administration,
finally forge a compromise piece of legislation that will direct federal farm
program for at least the next six years. Now, pending final passage by both chambers
it will be sent to President Bush for his signature. As negotiations proceeded,
the National Grange actively notified both Members of Congress and its grassroots
membership regarding Grange supported provisions in both bills that should be
part of the final legislation. While all of the details of the final legislation
have not all been released to the public yet, we do have some of the broad outlines
of the final program regarding The
final Farm Bill includes a Federal dairy support price of $9.90 per cwt for the
six year life of the farm program. The
dairy provisions also include a direct, federal financial assistance payment program
targeted to moderate sized dairy farms. All dairy producers across the nation
will be eligible for variable payments equal to 45% of the difference between
$16.94 and the Class I milk price in the Boston market. Payments will be limited
to the first 2.4 million pounds of annual production per farm. (or about the annual
production from 130-135 dairy cows) Unlike the rest of the Farm Bill, which continues
until 2008, the dairy financial assistance program will only go through September
2005.
The final
legislation does not include any dairy compact provisions in the final version
of the 2002 Farm Bill. Since 1985, the National Grange has supported regional
dairy programs. With the enactment of the Northeast Dairy Compact as part of the
1996 Farm Bill, prices for milk in New England were stable, consumers benefited
from locally produced milk, and food assistance programs were unaffected. However
the Northeast Dairy compact expired on September 30, 2001 and efforts to reauthorize
the Northeast Dairy compact and create new Dairy compact programs for other regions
of the country were unsuccessful. The
final legislation essentially splits the difference between the $275,000 payment
limitation provisions from the U.S. Senate Farm Bill and the $550,000 payment
limitation provisions in the House Farm Bill, but leaves in place many of the
loopholes that have allowed individuals and corporations who are not actively
engaged in farming to receive farm program payments. Loan rates, target prices
and "adjustment' payments for many traditional crops will both increase and decrease
in a complicated set of manipulations over the next six years to allow the farm
program to meet budget limitations. The peanut program will be transformed from
a quota system to look more like other crop programs with loan rates and target
prices. The wool and mohair programs will be reinstated, after being eliminated
in the 1996 Farm Bill. Dry peas and lentils will now have their own price support
program. With nearly $49 billion additional dollars above current spending scheduled
to go to federal farm program payments under the new Farm Bill, it is now likely
that at least one third to one half of all net farm income will come from government
checks over the next six years, regardless of the health of the overall farm economy.
The final legislation includes Grange supported provisions for consumer labeling
of meat, fruits and vegetable by their country of origin. However, it is uncertain
at this time how these provisions will be applied to processed products, especially
processed meats. The
conservation title of the new Farm Bill will allow for more than $17 billion in
new spending on conservation related programs. The Environmental Quality Incentives
Program will increase dramatically in order to help farmers deal with new environmental
regulations such as Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Confined Animal Feedlot
Operations (CAFO) requirements being imposed by the USEPA. The Conservation Reserve
Program will increase total enrollment to 39.2 million acres and will allow greater
flexibility for farmers to graze livestock on their land and to harvest solid "biomass" materials like switchgrass, that can be used as a supplemental fuel
sources in coal burning electric generation plants. A special 2 million acre Grasslands
Reserve program, aimed at protecting traditional prairie grasslands by buying
long term development rights from ranchers, is created under the new legislation.
The existing Wildlife Habitat Incentive program, which pays farmers to create
and manage wildlife habitat areas on their land will receive $700 million in funding
over the life of the legislation. The Farmland Protection Program, which has become
important in providing farm preservation funds for states that are losing valuable
farm land acres to development will be funded at $1billion. As
additional details of the new federal farm program become available, the National
Grange Legislative Department will update our reports to our members. While not
a perfect piece of legislation, the National Grange will urge all Senators and
Representatives to vote in favor of the 2002 Farm Bill Conference Committee Report
and send the legislation to President Bush for his signature as soon as possible.
top Do
Politics Matter in Farm Bill Debates?
For decades, politicians on both
sides of the aisle in Congress have proclaimed that farm policy was mostly a "bipartisan"
debate, driven by the objective desire to craft reasonable, predictable, and sound
policy to guide the production of food and fiber in our nation. If there were
sharp differences of opinion on farm policy, they were credited to "regional"
rather than "partisan" considerations. While some may argue that this is still
the case, increasing evidence indicates that partisan objectives as much as any
other factors have been (and will be) shaping agricultural policy debates. Much
of the controversy related to this year's Farm Bill debate, the collapse of the
Northeast Dairy Compact without a single up-or-down vote in either chamber, the
$73 billion spending increases for farm programs during a time of rising deficits
and timely completion of the final legislation just as the Spring planting season
began, can all be squarely credited to the partisan politics of the upcoming election.
In the US Senate, where the Democrats hold a one seat majority, the voters choices
in the election battleground Senate seats currently held by Democrats in the Midwest
and by Republicans in the South will probably determine which party controls the
Senate in the next Congress. In the House of Representatives, where there is a thin 6 vote majority of Republicans,
redistricting and not farm programs, will probably be the biggest factor in determining
which party will control of the chamber come January. While the final redistricting
process across all fifty states is likely to result in the fewest number of "rural"
majority Congressional districts in the history of the Republic, a funny thing
is happening on the way to the polling booth. It seems that compassionate policy
toward family farmers as well as addressing agriculture and food security issues
has become a measurable concern among many urban and suburban voters. Both major
political parties and several major political polling organizations have been
measuring voter perceptions on farm issues this year with poll questions like
"Which party, in your opinion, best handles agriculture issues?" So even in urban
and suburban "swing" districts, the perception voters have of the candidates and
their support for agricultural policy is likely to have an effect on close races. So
as farmers prepare to plow into the new Farm Bill and understand all the details
of the new program, political operatives will be starting today to plan their
strategy for the next Farm Bill, now scheduled to expire in six years or 2008.
Just by coincidence, that is when all of the current Midwestern and Southern Senate
seats that are up for reelection this year will be up for reelection again! It
will also be a presidential election year, with full media attention on the famous
Iowa Caucuses just as the 2008 Farm Bill House/Senate conference committee tries
to soberly draft a "bipartisan", rational farm program to balance the needs of
consumers, farmers, and processors across the nation.
top Still
Time to Register for Fly In 2002
The National Grange is preparing for
the 5th Annual National Grange Legislative Fly-In. This year, Fly-In 2002 will
take place from June 9 through June
11, at the National Grange headquarters in Washington DC. Grassroots Grange members
interested in attending Fly In 2002 should have their registrations in to the
National Grange Legislative Department no later than Friday May 3, 2002. We will
continue to accept registrations after May 3, but we cannot guarantee that hotel
rooms will be available after that date. Grange members interested in attending
National Grange Fly In 2002 can contact their State Grange Master or Legislative
Director, check the National Grange's Website www.nationalgrange.org or contact
the National Grange Legislative Department by phone (202) 628-3507 ext 101, fax
(202) 347-1091, or by e-mail swilkins@nationalgrange.org, or lwatson@nationalgrange.org
for more details.
top
|
