 | Dear
Candidate _____: The
National Grange is the nation's oldest general farm and rural public interest
organization. Founded in 1867, today the National Grange represents nearly 300,000
members affiliated with 3,000 local, county and state Grange chapters. It
is our pleasure to present you this copy of "Rural Voters Matter", a candidate
education manual for 2004 election. Family farmers and ranchers in the United
States who are facing growing challenges in the 21st century should not be excluded
from this election's discourse. This booklet addresses problems with current rural
policies and offers National Grange's solutions to them. We cautiously selected
the five major rural issues: Farm policy, Telecommunications, The Endangered Species
Act, Alternative Fuels, and Health Care. This
publication will increase your knowledge and understanding of the current major
rural issues, and outline possible solutions. This will help you to win support
from rural voters. We
hope you find this publication to be useful in your campaign and wish you success
in the 2004 congressional race.
Sincerely,
William A. Steel,
President of National Grange
________, President of ________ State Grange
|
|
 America's
family farmers and ranchers face challenges regarding food security, contract
agriculture, agribusiness consolidations, trade negotiations, and low prices.
Federal farm programs should encourage increased participation in the agricultural
sector by the largest number of individuals and families through the broadest
practical distribution of agricultural production. Instead, federal farm policies
discourage innovative farm practices such as part-time farming, new uses, organic
and biotechnology. Allowing
imports of milk protein concentrates (MPC) and failure to recognize regional differences
in the cost of production among dairy farmers is depressing prices. U.S.
trade policy must create equal opportunities for America's farmers. |
|
FOOD
SECURITY - SECURING OUR NATIONS FOOD SUPPLY  Since
the outbreak of Mad Cow disease, producers and consumers have become increasingly
concerned with animal health and the safety of our nation's food supply.
What
Do we Do?
 Support
a National Animal ID program that is capable of rapidly tracing an animal's
point of origin. The program should include safeguards to protect the privacy
of the producer. Additionally, support Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling
as a marketing program that will increase consumer awareness and encourage consumption
of American food products. DECREASING
NUMBER OF FARMS - KEEPING OUR FARMERS FARMING
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, between 1997 and 2002
the US lost 86,894 farms in the ever-growing trend of a decrease in the number
of farms and an increase in the size of farms, shifting American agriculture from
the family farmer to corporate type farming operations. What
Do We Do? 
Support
federal farm policies that provide credit, risk management, environmental stewardship,
and income support programs for family farmers and ranchers, regardless of the
crop or livestock they produce. Farm programs should be based on units of production,
not acreage. Tax
laws should enable farm families to pass their land on to future generations.
Support
the Death
Tax Repeal Permanency Act! Support
innovative farm practices like part-time farming, new uses, organic, or biotechnology.
Support
programs to preserve farmland. DAIRY
PRICE SUPPORTS - HELPING DAIRIES HELP CONSUMERS
The
surge in imports of milk protein concentrates (MPC) has created a negative ripple
effect economically for US dairy producers, who have suffered because of reduced
milk sales, lower prices, and a weakening of the price support program, the principal
dairy safety net. What
Do We Do? 
Support
the Milk
Import Tariff Equity Act to provide a fair, equitable, affordable and
WTO-legal solution to the ongoing problem of unregulated imports of MPC by applying
the same tariff-rate quotas currently assessed on other imported dairy products
to MPC and casein used in the food and animal feed industries. Support
the National
Dairy Equity Act, legislation that recognizes regional differences based
upon the cost and amount of production, availability of markets, percentage of
production that is allocated to CCC stocks, and the percentage of Class 1 use.
TRADE RESTRICTIONS
- MAKING A FREE MARKET FAIR The
WTO has ruled that the US cotton program is illegal. Similar WTO rulings could
affect other US farm programs that assist family farmers. Meanwhile producers
are facing a tough market that that is becoming overloaded with foreign trade
barriers.  What
Do We Do?
Reduce
domestic and foreign barriers to agricultural trade.
Support
new trade negotiations, such as WTO Doha Round, only when our trading partners
agree that agricultural trade agreements must improve the standard of living for
all affected farmers, including US farmers. Prevent
foreign subsidies from undermining domestic agricultural prices or natural resource
industries. | NEED
AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE AND HIGH QUALITY SERVICES |
 Access
to telecommunications services will be as important to rural America in the 21st
Century as universal mail, electricity, and telephone service were in the last
century.
Access
to the Internet and other advanced telecommunications technologies including long-distance,
cable, satellite and wireless services can expand life-long learning opportunities,
increase the quality of health care, enhance public safety, promote more efficient
and environmentally friendly farm technology and make a wider array of services
more affordable to rural communities. However,
this access is threatened by government regulations that allow large media conglomerates
to control multiple media venues and that do not provide incentives for advanced
communication service providers to extend access to rural areas. It's also jeopardized
by inefficiently managed federal programs such as Universal Service Fund |
|
HIGH-SPEED
INTERNET CONNECTION / CHOICE FOR THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER  The
Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that over the past three years, broadband
adoption has grown quickly in each community type. However rural Internet users
are less likely than urban and suburban users to have a high-speed connection.
Satellite and wireless connections hold the promise to serve more remote areas.
In 2003 the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Communications Commission
launched a joint initiative to stimulate wireless broadband adoption in rural
communities. However, the number of wireless users is presently too small to assess
the growth of wireless connections.
What
Do We Do?
Support
legislation that would provide incentives to private business, government agencies,
and individual citizens to develop access to advanced telecommunication services
in rural areas, including legislation that would allow Public Utility Districts,
or other public utilities to get involved in establishing wireless communication
systems. Support
legislation to promote an integrated telecommunications network to assure widely
available, high quality telecommunications to all of the nation's users at a reasonable
cost as was originally intended by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Communications
Act of 1996 including the creation of a nation-wide fiber optic network. COMPETITION
AMONG MEDIA COMPANIES Current
FCC regulations allow large conglomerates to control multiple media venues. Millions
of rural consumers suffer the consequences of higher prices, fewer choices and
reduced services. What
Do We Do?
Support
regulations that allow new and medium-sized media companies to compete, especially
in rural markets. Restrict media mergers that result in consolidated control of
multiple media venue and that limit access to diverse points of view in rural
communities. FEDERAL
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND (USF) PROGRAM - THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE EQUITY ACT  |
National
Grange Legislative Director, Leroy Watson (far left) with Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) discussing the Universal Service EquityAct of 2004
(06/23/04) |
|
The
Universal Service Fund (USF) is a federal program to promote
the availability of quality telecommunications services at affordable rates and
to increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation.
Almost 70% of rural Americans are served by one of 30 so-called "non-rural" carriers,
which is what the FCC calls large carriers that serve both urban and rural areas.
Under the USF program for these "non-rural" carriers: -
$277 million in annual federal support is being spent in just 10 states.
-
Almost 90% of that funding is consumed by only five states.
-
High-cost rural communities in 40 states receive zero assistance from this key
component of the USF program.
Consumers
in 40 states collectively pay more than $200 million into this key component of
the USF program and receive zero back. The list of excluded states includes many
with significant high-cost rural areas, such as Arizona, California, Michigan,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. Without USF
support, needed investments in the telephone network are not occurring in many
rural communities, putting them at a competitive disadvantage in today's increasingly
digital economy.  | Source:
Coalition for Equitable & Affordable Service (2004) |
|
What
Do We Do?
Support
the Universal
Service Equity Act to ensure a fairer, more targeted distribution of USF,
focused on rural communities that truly need the help, without raising consumer
costs, taxes, surcharges or federal spending. To
date, more than 110 US Senators and Representatives from both political parties
and 80 leaders, including 29 governors, 36 state utility commissioners, and advocates
for consumers, business, labor, local governments, farmers, seniors and minorities
have cosponsored the Universal Service Equity Act.
| DEFEND
ENDANGERED RURAL ECONOMY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS |
 1,200
farmers owning 200,000 acres in the Klamath River Basin of southern Oregon
and northern California were denied their water rights during the summer of 2001
because of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The sudden disappearance of irrigation
water generated a loss of nearly $200 million to the local economy and
forced nearly two-dozen farmers into bankruptcy.
The
Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973 with a goal to conserve and protect
American species of wildlife and plants threatened with extinction. However, ESA
restricts normal, traditional and customary activities on private and public lands
in rural areas without regard for states' rights, protection of private property,
sound science, local economic impact or community safety.
The consequences have been heavy handed federal land and water regulatory programs
that create unnecessary animosity, that fail to meet their environmental goals,
that threaten vital publicly-owned economic infrastructures, such as dams and
irrigation systems, and that increase the risks of catastrophic wildfires in populated
areas. The Endangered Species Act has created a vast federal bureaucracy that
is more intent on its own preservation than the successful preservation of endangered
species. There
are currently 1,265 US plant and animal species and 561 foreign
plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered under the act. Only
39 species have ever been removed from the threatened or endangered lists
in the three decades since the law was enacted. 15 were removed because they
were improperly listed. |
|
"Our
community has become the poster child of abuse by the Endangered Species Act.
I respectfully request that the members of this congressional committee never
allow us to be betrayed by an Act that has become a tool to destroy rural America."
-
David Carman on behalf of Klamath Basin Veteran Homesteaders PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS & RURAL ECONOMY AT RISK  | Tulake
National Wildlife
Refuge, CA |
|
Approximately
76 percent of wetlands and endangered species exist
on private lands. The ESA takes precedence over private property rights and ownership
derived from the US Constitution. The ESA gives property owners no incentives
to protect endangered species on their land by refusing to provide property owners
compensation when their property is taken. A landowner who modifies habitat where
a species is listed is subject to fines and imprisonment. The burdens of environmental
protection belongs to society as a whole, not to individuals. The restrictions
that the Act places on private property also reduce the property's economic value
or even make the property worthless to the private owner. As a result, rural economic
vitality is being diminished. What
Do We Do?
Support programs
that ensure adequate and full compensation for the taking of private property
by the government, including, but not limited to, government grazing permits,
water easements and areas designated as critical habitat for endangered species.
Support
the Critical
Habitat Reform Act amending the ESA to give adequate consideration to
the socioeconomic impact ESA action has on farmers and ranchers. Limit
the role of the federal government in setting national land use goals and priorities
to ensure the preservation of farmland for agricultural purposes. "The
Endangered Species Act is broken. This flood of litigation over critical habitat
designation is preventing the Fish and Wildlife Service from protecting new species
and reducing its ability to recover plants and animals already listed as threatened
or endangered." -
Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks  SOUND
SCIENCE IN NEED
Unlike
nearly every other major federal program to protect the environment, major decisions
under the ESA such as listings, de-listings, consultations and recovery efforts
are not based on peer reviewed, sound scientific information. What
Do We Do?
Support
the Sound
Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act to require verifiable,
independent, scientific data and peer reviews in making ESA decisions.
| PROMOTE
AMERICAN FARM RESOURCES FOR BIOFUELS! |
 Increased
use of alternative fuels derived from renewable resources found on our nation's
farms and forests means less dependency on foreign oil, a cleaner environment,
and new markets for agricultural crops. There are ways for agricultural commodities
to be processed to blend with petroleum to provide cleaner and less expensive
fuel. Also, the economic and environmental benefits of biofuels to society are
being proven.
Many
studies show establishment of major new biofuel industries in rural areas is likely
to have substantial economic benefits for farming communities. According
to the Department of Energy's report (2001) -  | Source:
National Fuel Energy, Inc (2003) |
|
Preliminary
estimates by Oak Ridge National Laboratory suggest that ethanol production from
corn stover alone could result in $8.9 billion in industrial output and $3.8 billion
in value added, creating about 76,000 permanent jobs. Another study, for switchgrass
production, found that total US farm income could increase by $6 billion. At the
local level, a USDA study estimated that a 100 million gallons/year (380 million
liters/year) ethanol production facility would create 2,250 local jobs for a single
community. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that inclusion of just 1% biodiesel
(partly replacing sulfur as a lubricity additive) in all road diesel fuel would
generate demand for 300 million gallons (1.1 billion liters) of biodiesel adding
more than $800 million to gross farm incomes. |
|
TAX
INCENTIVES  | Source:
Department of Energy |
|
The
high costs of producing alternative fuels don't allow them to compete with traditional
fuels that have enjoyed preferential tax treatment for decades. Several legislative
vehicles supporting tax incentives for biofuels are under consideration in the
108th Congress but they are being paralyzed by partisan politics. What
Do We Do?
Support legislation
to enact tax incentives to manufacturers of blended fuels to expand and develop
more refineries for the use of farm commodities and tax incentives to companies
that convert their equipmentto the use of blended fuels.  FUNDING
FOR TECHNOLOGY
To make biofuels more economically attractive, we need to develop technology to
lower feedstock costs and costs associated with production. The government funding
for and investment in research for biofuel technology is currently far less than
required to do the job. What
Do We Do?
Support
accelerated funding for research and development of affordable alternative fuels.
MORE
RENEWABLE COMPONENT IN MOTOR FUELS What
Do We Do?
Support
legislation requiring the nation's motor fuels to contain a renewable component.
Support the goal of at least a 10% blend of ethanol or biodiesel to be
used in at least 50% of all motor fuel sold in the United States. - A
bushel of soybeans (60lb or 27kg)
yields about 11 pounds (5kg) of
soybean oil, making 1.5 US gallons
(5.7liters) of biodiesel.
- A
bushel of corn (56lb or 25kg) yields about 2.5 US gallons (9.5 liters) of ethanol.
- A ton (2000lb
or 980kg) of corn stover will yield about 80-90 US gallons (300-340 liters) of
ethanol, and a ton of switchgrass will yield in the range of 75-100 US gallons
(285-380 liters).
Source:
Department of Energy | A
NEED FOR MORE CHOICES AND MORE SERVICES |
 | - Only
about 10 % of physicians practice in rural America despite the fact that 25% of
our population lives in these areas
-
Rural residents are less likely to have employer provided health care coverage
or prescription drug coverage, and the rural poor are less likely to be covered
by Medicaid benefits than their urban counterparts.
-
Medicare payments to rural hospitals and physicians are dramatically less than
those to their urban counterparts for equivalent services. This correlates closely
with the fact that more than 470 rural hospitals have closed in the past 25
years.
Source:
National Rural Health Association |
|
According
to the US Health & Human Services Department (HHS), more than 20 million rural
residents have inadequate access to health care services. The National Grange
Partners with former Sen. Bob Dole in educational programs on a new Medicare Prescription
drug benefit. (Sen. Bob Dole and Bill Steel, President of National Grange in the
press conference on February 19th, 2004) |  |
CHOICE
OF MEDICARE / INSURANCE PLANS Rural
Medicare beneficiaries do not have comparable choices among providers, health
care plans, and benefit packages as urban and suburban Americans. They also do
not have competitive medical insurance choices that include fee-for-service competition
between PPO and HMO products. What
Do We Do?
Rural seniors must
have a choice of Medicare programs including affordable prescription drug benefits.
SHORTAGE
OF PHYSICIANS AND HEALTH FACILITIES According
to the USDA, one of the most prevalent obstacles rural Americans face in accessing
timely and appropriate primary health care services is the shortage of health
professionals to provide needed services. The clinic forms of primary or emergency
care for rural communities are inadequate to support full service medical care.
The Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis says that the relative lack of
 physicians
in non- metropolitan/rural areas has been attributed to the professional and personal
isolation experienced
by physicians and their families as well as the lack of hospitals and medical
technologies in rural
areas. What
Do We Do?
Support incentive
programs for doctors who agree to practice in rural areas where basic medical
care is not available. Repeal regulatory barriers that rural health care facilities
face regarding equitable reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. MODERN
PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGIES (TELEMEDICINE) Since
rural residents have difficulty in reaching health care providers, availability
of Internet health care is critical. However, telemedicine infrastructure such
as high-speed Internet access is desperately lacking in rural areas. What
Do We Do?
Support the establishment
of the necessary infrastructure for the expansion of telemedicine into rural areas.
The
National Grange will be sponsoring educational programs on Medicare-Approved Discount
Drug Cards to help rural seniors choose the right card for themselves in over
1000 communities across America. It will be distributing informational materials,
conducting informational sessions through its local and state affiliates, and
taking part in county and state fairs to inform beneficiaries and their families
about the Medicare-Approved Discount Drug Cards. Building Washington, D.C.
|
|
|  | Senator
Bob Dole and Bill Steel, National Grange President |
|
|
| 
