Church Role in Rural Mental Health

Church Role in Mental Health for Rural Communities

Isolation, individualism make mental health a sensitive topic for rural populations; churches and religious groups form a trusted core.

By Michael Holton, michaellh@cfra.org

Last month I wrote about the mental health aspect of living in small rural communities and the lack of mental health care. This is nothing new to the people who live in rural America, nor is it new to the mental health professionals. Why is this such a difficult topic to bring to the table?

As I have often pointed out, living in small rural communities brings with it a set of rural cultural values. Most individuals living in rural America hold stereotyped views regarding mental illness, psychotropic medication, or mental health care in general.

It is unclear why this stigma is more pronounced in rural areas, but factors such as insufficient resources, isolation, and the value of autonomy may lead to some answers. In farming/ranching rural communities, an overriding sense of individualism demands we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and solve our own problems.

The first aspect of addressing rural mental health is to make sure to address rural first and then mental health. Too often providers address mental health in rural areas as a subset of addressing mental health in general. This simply is not true.

On an urban or larger scale, the provider for mental health may well be the local, state, or federal government. This provides a barrier in rural areas, and distrust is prevalent. The outlet for relief can come from institutions that are already trusted.

Religious groups and churches form a fundamental core of unity and trust in small rural communities. Pastoral counseling is widely regarded as an alternative in mental health care and has been effective.

Churches can address rural mental health in a holistic manner and can reach several age groups in one setting. Where ethnic populations reside, trust becomes even more important, and the church can be the conduit in which rural mental health care can be provided.

Nearly 60 million rural Americans experience rates of mental illness. Many of these people rely on collaborative and cooperative efforts to help them cope. Next month we will look at how some community groups address rural mental health in their own communities.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Decade of Growth for Local Food in Iowa

Decade of Growth for Locally Produced Food in Iowa

Today Iowa is harvesting the results of a conference that took place a decade ago. A group of Iowans shared a meal of locally grown food and explored how it would be possible for more Iowans to eat what their neighbors grew. Matt Russell, Lacona farmer and board chair of the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture see great promise in local food systems.

Today one of the fastest growing segments of Iowa agriculture is locally produced food. Family farmers credit a gathering ten years ago with planting the seeds of this new trend.

When the first local food conference was held in Iowa in 1995, there was very little food that Iowans could purchase from their neighbors. Matt Russell, who farms near Lacona andis board chair of the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture, says the trend benefits thewhole food chain.

"Local food really connects, it's a healthy food and creates healthy people out of that comes from healthy farms and a healthy environment. There is a lot of economic opportunities so we get healthy communities and a healthy economy."

The Iowa Network for Community Agriculture was born as a result of that first local food conference; since then they've been helping farmers and consumers connect throughout the state.

"We've seen a growth in farmers markets. We've seen a growth in direct sales from farms and restaurants are now putting it on their menu that a particular farm that they are buying their pork from or their eggs or poultry and their vegetables."

The network will meet up again in February, and their next conference on the health benefits of locally grown food. In addition, Russell says there will be workshops on cooking, how to find and store locally produced foods during the winter, marketing and production techniques for farmers.

The conference will be held February 3rd and 4th at Walnut Hills Methodist Church in Clive. For information on the conference go to http://www.growinca.org/ , contact Matt Russell at 515-689-8219.

or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center Wins National Microenterprise Award

Center for Rural Affairs Rural Enterprise Assistance Project Wins National Award

The Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP) received the first place Excellence in Microenterprise Work with Women Entrepreneurs award from the Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO) for its work in the Women & Company Microenterprise Boost Program. This was the top award made to local program partners across the nation.

The Women and Company Boost Program was designed to provide low and moderate-income women microentrepreneurs the opportunity to achieve greater business success by providing cash awards that have a measurable impact on their business’ development.

REAP is a small business support program for Nebraska’s rural micro businesses. The Boost program allowed REAP to make nine $1,000 cash equity awards to women-owned REAP businesses. The nine women entrepreneurs had more than gratitude to show for the money. Each one told of the positive impacts the funding provided their businesses.

“It was just amazing to hear about the uses and outcomes that $1000 made in these businesses. The money helped market the businesses, helped with the cost of continuing education, helped with new product and enterprise development, and in some cases made it possible to upgrade software and hardware technology,” said Glennis McClure, Center for Rural Affairs and Director of the REAP Women’s Business Center.

This project reinforced the notion that small amounts of capital can make a big impact for small businesses. Working with REAP offers several advantages. REAP business specialists are located across the state and provide technical assistance and expertise in creating or updating a business plan. Borrowing from a REAP association or through the new REAP Rapid Loan program is another potential benefit.

A grant from the Citigroup Foundation provided the Boost grant funds, and they were managed by the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, a national membership association representing microenterprise development programs across the country. Women and Company, a division of Citigroup that provides access to financial education and resources for women worked with AEO to implement and promote the program.

Local partner awards were based on project management, success stories, and measurable business impacts. REAP has submitted an application to be a program partner in 2006.

for more information post a question or comment here or
contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Captive Cattle Supplies Destroy Market

Captive Supply Destroying Independent Cattle Feeder Sector

By Chase Carter, Organization for Competitive Markets

In the world of cattle marketing, the independent custom feeders play a key role in the continued profitability of the industry. Whether feeding customer or company-owned cattle, independent feeders provide efficient cattle feeding and care, professional marketing, and establish the weekly prices through negotiating with packers. But the independent feeders are being driven out of business by captive supplies, because packers freeze them out of markets in favor of packer-aligned cattle sources. Captive supply reform must be included in the 2006 Farm Bill to revitalize the industry.

When meat packers own their own cattle, or contract months ahead for delivery of cattle, the industry calls the arrangements “captive supplies.” The packer has “captured” the exclusive right to cattle delivery, there is no bidding when cattle are sold, and the prices are not reported. The Organization for Competitive Markets believes about 80% of cattle sold today are captive cattle.

This means prices are set by the 20% or fewer remaining cattle sold after negotiations with independent feedlots. The USDA reports these few transactions, which set the market price for the week. Packers use their captive supplies to avoid the open market, and to bid low because they have most of their needs met through “captured cattle.” Though extremely efficient, independent feedlots face far more uncertainty, worrying every week whether they can sell customer cattle because packer needs are full. Their customers lose money and do not return.

Just as Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama with the convergence of rain, wind and floods; captive supplies devastate the independent cattle feeding sector with the convergence of market freeze out, low prices, and a financially demoralized customer base. The packers then claim we need to import Canadian, Australian and Brazilian cattle because of short domestic supplies.

These points were proven in the recent Pickett versus Tyson Fresh Meats case in Montgomery, Alabama. The jury saw Tyson data showing packer had 180% of their plant capacity locked in through captive supplies in some weeks. In other words, Tyson had all its cattle committed for one week plus 80% of the next week’s cattle. This access grants the ability to stay out of the cash market for weeks at a time and drive down the cash market.

The Packer & Stockyards Act was passed in 1921 to address these problems, but U.S. Courts have gutted the law. Congress needs to overrule the courts with new statutory language they cannot ignore. The USDA could fix many of the problems, but the revolving door and FEMA-like cronyism prevent this.

Imagine if the buyers of your cattle were actively bidding on them all week rather than a thirty minute window once a week. This true market process would not only raise the price of live cattle and increase the standard of living for the American producer, but would also benefit the whole of rural America. We need to get behind captive supply reform and get language into the upcoming Farm Bill that addresses this problem.

We need to tell our Congressman and Senators they are anti-agriculture unless they support competition over packer-controlled markets.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Now Cometh the Tax Cuts

Now Cometh the Tax Cuts

With the Senate and now the House passing their respective budget reconciliation spending cut bills, attention turns to the tax cutting part of the reconciliation process provided for in the budget resolution passed in the spring. We reported last week the Senate Finance Committee had to cancel markup on the bill due to opposition from moderate GOP Senator Olympia Snowe (ME). This week that problem was swept away when Chairman Grassley (R-IA) agreed to remove provisions extending tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, thus gaining Snowe’s support, and then, with some fancy footwork, getting conservatives to hold their fire with promises that tax cuts for wealthier constituents could possibly be negotiated back into the bill during conference with the House.

With that basic bait-and-switch promise in place, the bill sailed through committee and was passed on the Senate floor the night of November 17th 64-33, with ‘no’ votes from 4 Republicans and ‘yes’ votes from 14 Democrats: Baucus (MT), Johnson (SD), Nelson (NE), Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Lincoln (AR), Landrieu (LA), Feinstein (CA), Cantwell (WA), Dayton (MN), Stabenow (MI), Carper (DE), Schumer and Clinton (NY).

The parallel House bill was passed out of committee this week, but the floor vote is being held in abeyance until the House returns the week of December 5. In keeping with the spending cut bills, the respective tax cut bills are very far apart in terms of substance. While they are both weighing in at about $60 billion in cuts over 5 years, the huge differences include:
* the Senate bill uses over half that total to fix (for just one year!) the so-called alternative minimum tax so that it does not hit middle income taxpayers, an expensive but politically important fix completely absent in the House bill;
* the House bill includes 2-year extensions of capital gains and dividends tax cuts, which,as noted above, were left out of the Senate bill in order to get it out of Committee;
* the Senate bill includes tax incentives for areas hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but the House bill does not;
* the Senate bill includes incentives for charitable giving, and the House bill does not;
* the Senate bill includes a one-year $5 billion tax increase on big oil companies, not only not in the House bill but fiercely opposed by the White House, House leadership, and many Western Senators who nonetheless voted for the bill with promises, again, that it could be ‘fixed’ in conference.

for more information post a question or comment here
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Battle Over Small Schools Continues

Battle Over Small Schools Continues In Nebraska

By John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

On November 14th, Lancaster County District Judge Paul Merritt issued a temporary order suspending a state law passed in the last legislative session that would have required all elementary-only schools to merge with larger districts. Nebraska has 206 elementary-only school districts, with many located in the most rural parts of the state.

The judge’s temporary order suspending forced Class I district mergers must be made permanent by the end of the month. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, could appeal the order, potentially lifting the injunction until the Nebraska Supreme Court has the opportunity to rule on the case.

The State School Reorganization Committee would be obliged to begin carrying out the law if the injunction were lifted, according to Committee Chair Kendall Mosely. “If the committee is free to go ahead and do what it’s charged to do, we will,” Mosely said.

If the schools are dissolved as current law requires in June 2006, over 4 months before the vote, “a fair opportunity to vote in a meaningful manner will not be available,” Judge Merritt ruled.

Once the Class I districts are dissolved; court decisions and election results will likely be unable to reverse the process. If dissolution of Class I schools is delayed until after November 2006, the schools will still be there and will be subject to the law and the will of the people. If dissolution proceeds, the people will lose their voice in the matter. Let the people decide.

for more information post a question or comment here
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Summary of House Ag Budget Cuts

- from the desk of Ferd Hoefner, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, fhoefner@msawg.org

House Approves Budget Cuts

Unlike last week, the ‘revenge of the GOP moderates’ fizzled out this week. The House approved the spending cuts portion of the budget reconciliation process by the now all-too-familiar, wee-hours-of-the-morning, strictly-partisan, slim-margin vote. This time it was 217-215 at 1:45 AM Friday morning. It was a roller coaster day on Thursday, with the House voting down, 209-224, the 2006 appropriations bill for labor, education, and health and human services, with 22 Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition. The bill proposed to reduce spending on social programs by $1.4 billion compared to last year, or close to $5 billion accounting for inflation and the current level of services. This was the first appropriations bill defeated on the House floor since 1995, a stunning defeat for the House leadership. It seemed to portend trouble ahead on the 5-year spending cut bill. But, alas, by nightfall, they regained their stride, put the squeeze on, and rounded up the requisite number of moderates who would walk the plank.

With 14 GOP moderates still voting no, the deciding vote was cast by Energy Committee Chairman Barton (R-TX). Barton was forced to switch his vote from no (in protest of oil drilling in Alaska being dropped from the bill the week before) to yes after it became clear that even with the vote remaining open for an extra 15 minutes that it would not pass without his switch. Barton was escorted by Rep DeLay (R-TX) to the table in the front of the chamber where he then recorded his switch with a scowl while Democrats booed and Republicans cheered. Chief among the last minute vote-gaining deals was one negotiated by Rep. Jim Walsh (R-NY) to take a little bit of the sting out of the cuts to food stamps and Medicaid.

The last minute change, coupled with changes already agreed to early Thursday morning, reduced the Medicaid cut by $490 million to $11.4 billion and the food stamp cut by $183 million to $701 million. Rep. Green (R-WI) traded his vote after securing a letter from Speaker Hastert (R-IL) saying the House leadership might look favorably on securing in conference a two-year extension of the MILC dairy payments, included in the Senate but not the House bill. That move, assuming it happens, will almost certainly require an increase in the cuts to conservation, research and rural development programs.

Rep. Boehlert (R-NY), who last week indicated he would not change his mind, nonetheless voted yes, pointing to the dairy letter and to another promise from Hastert that the House in conference would be willing to consider more funding for low income heating assistance than is included in the House bill. And so it went. Our favorite lame quote of the day came from Rep. LaTourette (R-OH) who explained his yes vote (also like Barton’s a switch) to Congress Daily as follows: “As lousy as I thought this product was, we’re in the majority…leadership is telling me it’ll get better, so we’ll see.”

Three GOP Members who we had targeted to receive calls and information about the nature and extent of the cuts to nutrition, conservation, rural development and renewable energy programs did in fact vote no: Reps. Leach (R-IA), Ramstad (R-MN), and Johnson (R-IL).

Those we targeted who voted in favor of the bill included Reps. Emerson (R-MO), Osborne (R-NE), Kennedy (R-MN), Green (R-WI), Ehlers (R-MI), Schwartz (R-MI), Walsh (R-NY), and Boehlert (R-NY). From here, the bill next goes to a conference committee between the House and the Senate. The two bills are quite different in size and in detail. Proposals are floating to settle on a mid-point of about $43 billion in cuts in terms of the final size of the package, but even once that compromise is agreed to the fierce battle will be over the details.

Food and Ag Cuts: A quick review of the conference situation for the agriculture portion:
* the House has major food stamp cuts, and the Senate has none;
* the House has very minor commodity program cuts, and the Senate's are more substantial;
* the House has no MILC and the Senate has a 2-year extension of MILC;
* the House cuts the Conservation Security Program by $504 million and the Senate by $821 million;
* the House cuts the Agricultural Management Assistance program (including organic payments) and the Senate does not;
* the Senate cuts the Conservation Reserve Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the House does not;
* the House cuts Value-Added grants and Renewable Energy grants and the Senate does not;
* the House cuts the Initiative for Future Ag and Food Systems by $620 million while the Senate cuts it by $336 million.

Also up for grabs is whether to extend the authorities for the programs being cut, including the commodity programs, through 2011, as included in the Senate but not the House bill. The Administration is strongly opposed to the 2011 extension language, as is at least one likely Senate conferee -- Sen. Lugar (R-IN), but the position of the likely House conferees is not yet clear. We are still waiting to hear who will be appointed conferees for the agriculture section of the bill, but are expecting the Senate conferees to include on the Republican side Chambliss (GA), Lugar (IN), Cochran (MS), and possibly McConnell (KY), and on the Democratic side Harkin (IA), Leahy (VT), and possibly Conrad (ND).

House conferees are likely to include at least some of the Ag subcommittee chairs and ranking members. We will be contacting the conferees shortly after they are named with our positions and recommendations. We are cautiously optimistic on the prospects for getting the conferees to eliminate cuts to value-added and renewable energy, but less so on the prospects for curtailing very major cuts to CSP and IFAFS. Provided that the House conferees agree to ditch most or all of their proposed food stamp cuts, which they will need to do to have any chance of agreement with the Senate, it at this point appears quite unlikely the conference agreement would fall apart for any other reason connected to the agriculture portion of the bill.

However, the prospects for the conference to fall apart or get voted down based on cuts to Medicaid or whether or not to include oil drilling in ANWR still hold some promise for blowing up the bill. It is increasingly a long shot, but still a real possibility. The Schedule: The House and Senate will go into recess tomorrow, with the House due to come back the week of December 5 but the Senate to stay away until the week of December 12, which will be the week when final action occurs on the spending cut bill, the tax cut bill (see below), and the Defense appropriations and Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills.

for more information post a question or comment here
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

A Time of Moral Reckoning

A Time of Moral Reckoning

by Jim Wallis, Sojourners, www.sojo.net

For the past few weeks, thousands of you have been calling and e-mailing your members of Congress, urging them to oppose budget cuts that would hurt people living in poverty. Last Thursday, the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on its budget bill. Only minutes after the House convened, the leadership called for a recess. One can only imagine the arm-twisting and deal-making that was going on behind closed doors. But as the hours went on, it became clear it wasn't working. A unified Democratic caucus and a group of moderate Republicans refused to go along. Finally, in the late afternoon, the leadership announced they did not have enough votes, pulled the bill, and adjourned for the Veterans Day weekend.

That announcement by the House leadership showed that enough political leaders were listening - and wanted to do the right thing. Many of us who were working and praying that these massive assaults on our poorest families and children would be thwarted are grateful that we were successful, at least so far.

People of faith believe the budget is a moral document. And they are teaching Congress that moral values extend beyond just those wedge issues often used to divide people. The wins over the past weeks - protecting food stamps in the Senate, reinstating prevailing wages in the Gulf, forcing the House to rethink the budget - show that a partisan and ideological agenda that hurts both poor people and the common good is being called into question. For some time now, religious leaders from across the theological and political spectrum have been standing together against poverty - and we stand ready to support political leaders who speak out for a more compassionate and just budget.

Some of those leaders last week were members like Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), who said in a statement: "The poor bear an unfair burden of the proposed reductions. I'm concerned about cuts to higher-education funding, child care, child welfare and food stamps. These are simply the wrong priorities."

Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) also said in a statement, "...the proposal of significantly reducing student loans, food stamps and a host of other social programs at a time of many wrenches in the economy appears un-compelling."

I applaud leaders in the House who have championed better budget priorities all year - as well as those who are now doing some soul searching, digging down deep, and taking a stand for the less fortunate. I hope and pray that we are experiencing a turning point in how Congress will act to help "the least of these." Our health and security as a nation depends on that. This is a unique opportunity for elected leaders to prevent bad priorities from moving forward, a time of moral reckoning for our country.

The House leadership intends to try again this week to pass their budget, possibly on Friday. I urge you to continue telling your members of Congress that we will not support budget cuts that hurt poor and working families - not last week, not this week, not next week, or next year. It's time to take a stand.

for more information post a question or comment here
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Fair Contracts for Growers Act

- from the desk of Traci Bruckner, Center for Rural Affairs, tracib@cfra.org

Dear Senator Grassley:

I am writing on behalf of the Center for Rural Affairs to express our strong support for the Fair Contracts for Growers Act, and to thank you for your leadership in introducing this legislation.
The Fair Contracts for Growers Act is very timely. With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods of agricultural production, farmers are increasingly producing agricultural products under contract with large processors.

Under these contracts, it is common for farmers and growers to be forced to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, as part of a take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with a large, vertically integrated processing firm. In doing so, the farmer is forced to give up their basic constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must accept an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely limits their rights and is often prohibitively expensive. These clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving farmers little if any ability to seek justice if they become the victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.

Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has control of the information needed for a grower to argue their case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are waived through arbitration are access to mediation and appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the decision.

In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers. The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the magnitude of the dispute itself, with farmers being required to pay fees in the thousands of dollars just to start the arbitration process.

Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
The Center for Rural Affairs believes this is important because of the number of small and mid-size farms that enter into contract livestock production. Small and mid-size farms that don’t have the capital to invest in starting their own livestock operations often look to contract production as mechanism for diversifying their farming operations as well as their cash flow. However, when these farmers and ranchers are not allowed equal legal protection, their entire farming operations lay at risk.

Moreover, farmers who enter into contracts with meatpackers and large, corporate livestock producers will never have the power or negotiating position that those companies will enjoy in virtually every contract dispute. Producers often lack the financial and legal resources to challenge vertical integrators when their rights are violated. A legal agreement between smaller farm operations and integrators should, therefore, provide at least as much legal protection for producers as it does for the integrator.

Although the impetus behind this legislation emanates from the poultry industry, the rights of farmers who raise hogs and other livestock under contract are also threatened. And the increased use of production contracts in these sectors has made this issue that much more important to farmers in the Midwest and Great Plains as well.

Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these concerns, and your willingness to introduce commonsense legislation to stop the abuse of arbitration clauses in the livestock and poultry contracts.

for more information post a question or comment here or
contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center Wins Award For Microenterprise Work With Women

Center for Rural Affairs Receives Excellence in Microenterprise Work with Women Entrepreneurs

The Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP) received the first place Excellence in Microenterprise Work with Women Entrepreneurs award from the Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO) for its work in the Women & Company Microenterprise Boost Program. This was the top award made to local program partners across the nation.

The Women and Company Microenterprise Boost Program was designed to provide low and moderate-income women microentrepreneurs the opportunity to achieve greater business success by providing cash awards that have a measurable impact on the development of their business.

A grant from the Citigroup Foundation provided the boost loan funds, and they were managed by the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, a national membership association representing hundreds of microenterprise development programs across the country. Women and Company, a division of Citigroup that provides access to financial education and resources for women worked with AEO to implement and promote the program.

Excellence awards to local partners were made based on project management, success stories, and measurable business impacts. Congratulations to REAP for its award and to REAP’s boost awardees; just a great bunch of women to work with!

for more information post a question or comment
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Judge Rules for Small Schools

- from the desk of Kim Preston, Center for Rural Affairs, kimp@cfra.org

Judge Rules for Small Schools - Suspends Consolidation Law

LINCOLN (AP) - A state law requiring all elementary-only schools to merge with larger districts was put on hold by a judge Monday.

If the schools are dissolved as current law requires in June 2006, "a fair opportunity to vote in a meaningful manner will not be available," Lancaster County District Judge Paul Merritt Jr. ruled.

Supporters of the elementary-only, or Class I schools, sought the injunction to have the law suspended in case voters repeal it in the November 2006 election. The school merger repeal will be on the ballot, thanks to a successful petition drive.

The law requires the districts to be dissolved in June, 4 1/2 months before the vote.

Should the law be allowed to continue, the November vote would then "represent a meaningless exercise in futility," Merritt said in his ruling.

Attorneys for both the state and the schools that sought injunction were not immediately available to comment Monday.

The injunction request was brought by 10 schools and three individuals.

"Obviously we're happy about the decision but also feel it's fair," said Matt Nessetti with Nebraskans for Local Schools, a group that spearheaded the drive to repeal the law. "Our whole goal initially was to give the people a voice about this."

While enough signatures to put the question of repealing the law on the ballot, petition circulators fell about 26,000 short of enough to have automatically suspended the law without legal action.

The state attorney general's office argued that because petitioners had the ability to automatically suspend the law but failed to do so, the injunction should not be granted.

But the judge agreed with arguments made by Don Stenberg, a candidate for the U.S. Senate and a former three-term state attorney general who represented the small schools. He said that because a vote to repeal the law would be meaningless unless the law were suspended, the court would be justified in issuing the injunction.

The school consolidation law, passed by the Legislature earlier this year, calls for orders merging the schools to be entered by Dec. 1, with the mergers taking effect June 15, 2006.

That June deadline "impedes and hampers, or renders ineffective, the ability of the people to complete their exercise of the referendum power in a meaningful manner," the judge said.

This year there are 206 elementary-only schools in Nebraska, many of which are in the most rural parts of the state. Supporters of the schools fought the law, saying they should be able to determine their own fate and not be forced to merge. Law proponents argue that having K-12 districts statewide will save money and provide a more equitable education to all students.

for more information post a question or comment here,
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Rural America Will Win

Rural America was pushed aside yesterday – so that a narrow-minded, short-sighted group of Senators could keep the mega payments flowing to the mega farms.

Those who opposed payment limits, often with scare tactics and political wrangling, won the day, but they have not won.

And they will not win.

They tell us that we must wait – wait until next time, until the next vote, the next year, the next farm bill…

But, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said – we must come to learn that wait almost always means never.

And so, we will not wait and we will not quit. We will look for every opportunity to press for reform – reform for the sake of family farmers, ranchers, rural communities and the poor; those with less, those without a voice in Washington – long sought reforms that will provide farm and rural policy with vision, common-sense, and investment in a future for rural America that includes thriving family farms and ranches and vibrant rural communities.

We will work for justice.

“We say, that if it is the policy of the wealthy and powerful, the policy of banks and corporations, the policy of too many politicians, to take away from have-nots and give to haves; then together we will not accept that policy, we cannot accept that policy, and we will defeat that policy, as long as it takes.” Senator Paul Wellstone (Paul was a good friend of mine; I missed him yesterday, like most days, but especially yesterday).

It is better to spend a lifetime in rightful struggle and lose, than to spend one day in the hell of unprincipled compromise. But, knowing all of you are out there, knowing how much and how deeply you care, knowing your dedication, your talent, your conviction, your perseverance – that is what compels me to believe that we will not lose, not in the end.

In fact, we have won already. Truth, justice and most of the American people are on our side. Time is of the essence, but every day that we stand, undaunted, every day that we persist, every day that we persevere, brings us closer to our victory.

I have the added advantage of having all of you on my side. You have all done so much in this effort. I am proud of you all, and proud to be a part of the Center for Rural Affairs. This I promise, I will work hard and work to learn and improve upon my efforts, not just on this issue but in all of our work. I will be here Monday, and the next day and the next. I know all of you will continue your efforts too. And knowing that gives me all the hope in the world.

Thank you for all of your efforts, sincerely, thank you, john

John Crabtree
Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Votes

Thank You and Special Update - Payment Limitations and Budget Reconciliation

Thank you everyone who worked the Grassley-Dorgan payment limitation reform-agricultural conservation funding vote! It wasn’t for lack of effort or lack of grassroots support that the amendment was voted down. We truly appreciate the thousands of calls that have poured into Capitol Hill in support of this important amendment. As many of you know by now, the vote to waive the point of order and proceed to a vote on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment proper was defeated by a vote of 46-53, 14 votes short of the supermajority of 60 needed to overcome the point of order. By comparison, the 2002 Farm Bill vote on a very similar amendment was 66 in favor and 31 against.

For the Senators you worked on who voted with us, particularly if their vote was in question, please call or email a brief note of thanks. For those Senators you worked on who went against us, it would be a good idea to let them know of your disappointment. If you need any help of any kind, let us know. We lost 17 Senators who voted for nearly the same amendment during the 2002 Farm Bill floor consideration, and picked up only two new supporters. We also lost two votes with changes in the Senate – Wellstone (D-MN) to Coleman (R-MN) and Gramm (R-TX) to Cornyn (R-TX). So that is a total of 19 switches, with gain of only two, for a net loss of 17.

Two other Senators voted no today who have voted in favor of payment limit reform in the past but were not present for the vote in 2002. Sen. Corzine (D-NJ) was not present today, but would have been a yes vote.

We lost votes for a variety of reasons, most of which did not hinge on the merits. Some Senators (Sen. Leahy, D-VT) perceived they were voting to protect Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) payments (even though the amendment had identical provisions to the underlying bill, which were in no way threatened by passage of the amendment). Some supporters of drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) switched in order to make sure they would preserve their ANWR win (the Senate voted 51-48 to defeat the amendment that tried to stop the drilling plan), by keeping the bill clean of other controversial amendments.

Some previous Republican champions of payment limit reform voted against simply on the grounds that the party has to pass the budget and some southern Senators threatened to bring down the whole budget reconciliation bill if payment reform was included. Threats and promises related to the sugar program were also in play on some votes. The opponents made the point over and over again that the debate over payment limitation reform, and over the future of conservation spending, are the proper subject for consideration in the next farm bill. We need to hold them to that promise.

Payment limitation reform has not been seriously debated in committee since the budget reconciliation act in 1986 and before that in the farm bill of 1977. The time has come, and we will be ready. The vote on final passage of the budget reconciliation bill in the Senate will come next week and the vote in the House soon after, as well as the eventual conference between the House and the Senate on vastly different food and agricultural provisions. Thank you again for your commitment and good work.

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D - MT)
Bennett (R - UT)
Biden (D - DE)
Bond (R - MO)
Boxer (D - CA)
Bunning (R - KY)
Burns (R - MT)
Carper (D - DE)
Chambliss (R-AL)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cochran (R - MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R - ID)
Crapo (R - ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dodd (D - CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R - NM)
Burr (R-NC)
Feinstein (D - CA)
Frist (R - TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R - NH)
Hutchison (R - TX)
Inhofe (R - OK)
Inouye (D - HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I - VT)
Kohl (D - WI)
Kyl (R – AZ)
Landrieu (D - LA)
Leahy (D - VT)
Lieberman (D – CT)
Lincoln (D - AR)
Lott (R - MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R - AZ)
McConnell (R - KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D - FL)
Coburn (R-OK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R - KS)
Rockefeller (D - WV)
Sessions (R - AL)
Shelby (R - AL)
Stevens (R - AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R - VA)

The names above are the Senators that voted against payment limitations on November 3rd.

for more information post a question or comment here
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action

Action Alert - Competition in Livestock Markets

- from our friends at the Western Organization of Resource Councils

Action Alert: Call your Representative to Return Competition to Livestock Markets

Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) have introduced the Captive Supply Reform Act, H.R. 4257. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and ranchers who raise that livestock.

Your call of thanks is needed to show your support for this important bill.

What You Can Do:

Call your Representative and thank him or her for cosponsoring H.R 4257. Ask you Representative to urge the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee to hold hearings on H.R. 4257.

Contact friends and family in other states and ask them to contact their Representatives to sign on to H.R. 4257, too.

You can reach your Representative by calling the Capitol Switchboard at
202-224-3121 and asking for your Representative by name.

You can also find contact information for your Representative by logging on to http://www.house.gov.

What to Say When You Call:

Thank you for taking this important step in returning competition to the livestock markets by sponsoring the Captive Supply Reform Act, H.R. 4257.

This Act is vital to returning competition to the livestock markets.

I am a [consumer or livestock producer] and I support fair markets and strong economies. This legislation would make the contracts fair, and open to everyone, instead of the secret backroom deals we have now.

I ask you to encourage your House Agriculture Committee leadership to hold hearings on this important bill.

Background:

Meatpackers acquire half of all cattle and hogs they slaughter through what are known as captive supplies - livestock they own themselves or control through contracts with farmers and ranchers. These livestock are called captive because they are tied to one packer instead of being subject to normal market forces of supply and demand.

Four companies buy 80% of the cattle and half of the hogs that end up as steaks and chops on American dinner tables. In such a concentrated market, buyers (the packers) can - and do - use captive supplies to manipulate markets.

The Captive Supply Reform Act fixes the problems with captive supplies without prohibiting their use. Rather than banning contracts, the Captive Supply Reform Act would make two reforms to restore competition in the market for livestock contracts.

The Act would:

Require a fixed base price on contracts and marketing agreements

Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets - no more secret deals.

The Captive Supply Reform Act would restore competition by making packers and livestock producers bid against each other to win contracts. Forward contracts and marketing agreements allow packers and producers to coordinate supply and reduce risk, but as currently negotiated - in secret, with all the bargaining power on one side - they depress prices and shut small and independent producers out of markets. The Captive Supply Reform Act would require such contracts be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access.

H.R. 4257 is a companion bill to S. 960, sponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Craig Thomas (R-WY), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Kent Conrad (D-ND).

For more information on the Captive Supply Reform Act post a question or comment here or at http://www.worc.org/ - or contact Jeri Lynn Bakken, jerilynn@worc.org - or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

150 Groups Oppose House Budget Bill's Food and Farm Section

- from the desk of Ferd Hoefner, Sustainable Agricutlure Coalition, fhoefner@msawg.org

150 Groups Oppose House Budget Bill’s Food and Ag Section

A wide-ranging coalition of 150 food, hunger, conservation, rural, renewable energy and agricultural research organizations today and companies urged the House of Representatives to defeat the pending budget reconciliation bill. The groups argued that the Agriculture Committee-approved provisions in the bill are unfair and would have “a serious and negative impact on the nation’s ability to prevent hunger, solve critical environmental and energy problems, and improve economic opportunity in rural America.”

In particular, the diverse alliance of national, regional, and state groups singled out the cuts to the Food Stamps, Conservation Security, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvements, Value-Added Producer Grants, Agricultural Management Assistance (support for transition to organic farming), and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (competitive grant research funding) programs as misguided.

Among the many groups signing the letter were the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Congressional Hunger Center, National Organic Coalition, Bread for the World, National Farmers Organization, Center for Rural Affairs, Food Research and Action Council (FRAC), American Society of Agronomy, Community Food Security Coalition, Northeast-Midwest Institute, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Union of Concerned Scientists, Crop Science Society of America, National Family Farm Coalition, Organic Valley Family of Farms, Defenders of Wildlife, Soil Science Society of America, Rural Coalition, Share Our Strength, and American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

The full text of the letter follows:

November 8, 2005

Dear Representative:

We the undersigned organizations strongly oppose the misguided priorities reflected in the budget reconciliation package reported by the House Agriculture Committee and urge you to oppose the budget reconciliation bill when it reaches the floor.

The agricultural portion of the bill as reported would:

• Eliminate nearly 300,000 food stamp recipients from the program entirely. One proposal alone would terminate food stamps to 225,000 people, mostly in low-wage working families with children. Another provision would terminate food stamps working-poor and elderly legal immigrants by making them ineligible for seven years after legally entering the U.S. regardless of how poor they are. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 70,000 low-income legal immigrants would be tossed off the Food Stamp Program by this measure. Through program interactions, the food stamp section of the bill would also force 40,000 children to lose their automatic eligibility for free school meals, according to the Congressional Research Service.

• Cut conservation spending over the next five years by $760 million, a rate nearly three times greater than conservation’s share of total committee mandatory spending. One proposal alone, scaling back the groundbreaking new Conservation Security Program, would cut over $500 million, bringing a stop to new enrollments in the program before the end of this farm bill cycle and denying participation to farmer and ranchers in large portions of the country. All this comes at a time when three out of every four farmers seeking to enroll in conservation programs are being turned away due to lack of funds, and follows on the heels of a one-year $507 million cut to farm bill conservation programs in the recently passed FY06 Agricultural Appropriations bill.

• Totally eliminate all funding for 2007 for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvements program (Section 9006). This popular and successful farm bill program assists farmers and ranchers with wind power, solar energy, biofuels and energy efficiency projects. The bill also would eliminate baseline funding for this program in the next farm bill.

• Totally eliminate all funding for 2007 for the Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) Program that helps farmers and rural communities increase income and economic opportunity through creation of value-adding agricultural enterprises. The program is so popular that USDA is able to fund only a quarter of the project proposals. In addition to food and agricultural development projects, the program has also funded nearly 100 renewable energy projects in the last four years. The bill also would eliminate baseline funding for this program in the next farm bill.

• Totally eliminate funding for organic farming cost-share and organic transition conservation payments in each of the Northeast states and three Western states (UT, WY, and NV). These funds are helping to build a vibrant new farming industry. The cuts unfairly target some of the only organic funding in the entire agricultural budget and unfairly single out a region of the country.

• For three years, totally eliminate agricultural research and extension competitive grant funding by a total of a $460 million cut. The farm bill funding for the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems (IFAFS), while generally zeroed out in the appropriations bill, nonetheless provides the funding base for other agricultural research spending, including the National Research Initiative (NRI) which each year designates a major portion of its funding for the IFAFS program. Through IFAFS, the NRI funds important integrated research, education and extension projects in agro-ecosystems research, small and moderate-sized farm profitability, and human nutrition and obesity prevention.

In our view, these cuts do not represent a fair and balanced package. They would have a serious and negative impact on the nation’s ability to prevent hunger, solve critical environmental and energy problems, and improve economic opportunity in rural America. We urge you to vote against the entire bill and to speak out against the misplaced priorities represented by its agricultural component.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

[signed by 150 national, regional and state organizations]

- for more information post a question or comment here
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Microenterprise Funding Update

- from the desk of Jeff Reynolds, jeffr@alltel.net

SBA Microenterprise Funding Update!

The Conference Report of the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill has just been released, which includes final Fiscal Year 2006 funding levels for the SBA Microloan, PRIME and Women’s Business Center programs, including:

SBA Microloan Lending:
$12.7 million SBA Microloan Technical Assistance:
$13 million SBA PRIME Program:
$2 million SBA Women’s Business Centers:
$12,500,000, with not less than 41% going to continue Women’s Business Centers in sustainability status.

We have made it quite a long way! We began this year facing the potential elimination of the microenterprise industry’s flagship programs, SBA Microloan and PRIME. Both of these programs avoided elimination and received final funding levels slightly higher than the House recommended levels and slightly lower than the Senate levels.

Despite sustaining a difficult cut to the SBA PRIME Program this year, AEO will continue to work with our Congressional supporters to ensure the survival of PRIME in the future. We will also work with SBA to encourage an equitable and sensible distribution of SBA PRIME funds. Finally, AEO would like to thank its members for your incredible advocacy this year!

Given the enormous pressures that Congress was under to cut domestic spending, funding for all of AEO’s Legislative Priorities in FY 2006 represents a real victory. In addition, we can honestly say that the efforts of AEO members truly made a difference in ensuring the survival of the SBA Microloan and PRIME programs.

Next Steps:

It is expected that the full Senate and House of Representatives will meet to vote on the CJS Conference Report sometime in the next two weeks. No changes or amendments can be made to this bill. If passed by both houses, the final appropriations bill will then go to President Bush for his signature. AEO will keep members updated as the bill moves through this final stage of the process.

The Center for Rural Affairs will also make every effort to keep our supporters and allies updated as the appropriations bill moves through the process.

for more information post a question or comment here -
or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Thank You and Special Update

Thank You and Special Update - Payment Limitations and Budget Reconciliation

Thank you everyone who worked the Grassley-Dorgan payment limitation reform-agricultural conservation funding vote! It wasn’t for lack of effort or lack of grassroots support that the amendment was voted down. We truly appreciate the thousands of calls that have poured into Capitol Hill in support of this important amendment.

As many of you know by now, the vote to waive the point of order and proceed to a vote on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment proper was defeated by a vote of 46-53, 14 votes short of the supermajority of 60 needed to overcome the point of order. By comparison, the 2002 Farm Bill vote on a very similar amendment was 66 in favor and 31 against.

For the Senators you worked on who voted with us, particularly if their vote was in question, please call or email a brief note of thanks. For those Senators you worked on who went against us, it would be a good idea to let them know of your disappointment. If you need any help of any kind, let us know.

We lost 17 Senators who voted for nearly the same amendment during the 2002 Farm Bill floor consideration, and picked up only two new supporters. We also lost two votes with changes in the Senate – Wellstone (D-MN) to Coleman (R-MN) and Gramm (R-TX) to Cornyn (R-TX). So that is a total of 19 switches, with gain of only two, for a net loss of 17.

Two other Senators voted no today who have voted in favor of payment limit reform in the past but were not present for the vote in 2002. Sen. Corzine (D-NJ) was not present today, but would have been a yes vote.

We lost votes for a variety of reasons, most of which did not hinge on the merits. Some Senators (Sen. Leahy, D-VT) perceived they were voting to protect Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) payments (even though the amendment had identical provisions to the underlying bill, which were in no way threatened by passage of the amendment). Some supporters of drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) switched in order to make sure they would preserve their ANWR win (the Senate voted 51-48 to defeat the amendment that tried to stop the drilling plan), by keeping the bill clean of other controversial amendments.

Some previous Republican champions of payment limit reform voted against simply on the grounds that the party has to pass the budget and some southern Senators threatened to bring down the whole budget reconciliation bill if payment reform was included. Threats and promises related to the sugar program were also in play on some votes. The opponents made the point over and over again that the debate over payment limitation reform, and over the future of conservation spending, are the proper subject for consideration in the next farm bill. We need to hold them to that promise.

Payment limitation reform has not been seriously debated in committee since the budget reconciliation act in 1986 and before that in the farm bill of 1977. The time has come, and we will be ready. The vote on final passage of the budget reconciliation bill in the Senate will come next week and the vote in the House soon after, as well as the eventual conference between the House and the Senate on vastly different food and agricultural provisions. Thank you again for your commitment and good work.

for more information post a question or comment hereor contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.orgCenter for Rural AffairsValues. Worth. Action

Urgent Action Alert - Payment Limits

Urgent Action Alert

The Senate Will Vote on Farm and Rural Budget Cuts Tomorrow!

Act Now to Make Your Voice Heard for Rural America!

This is a moment when grassroots calls can make a major impact. Your Senators will be voting TOMORROW to either accept the agriculture budget cuts or adopt the Grassley-Dorgan amendment to limit payments to mega farms. There has never been a more crucial time to call your Senators’ offices to make your voice heard for the future of rural America and to protect conservation and food programs for America’s most vulnerable children and families.

Many Senators have not decided whether or not they will support payment limits, so your voice will have a real impact.

The full Senate will decide tomorrow on where they will make cuts to reconcile the budget. As it stands right now, the Agriculture Committee has recommended cuts to conservation programs that effect family farms as well as an across-the-board cut to commodity programs.

If the Senate votes to accept these recommendations, the Conservation Security Program that makes payments to farmers to protect the environment, will be cut yet again -- and many family farms will be lost entirely. The House of Representatives also wants to cut food stamps and rural development in addition to cutting conservation and support for family farms.

It does not have to be this way! Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dorgan (D-ND) will offer a payment limitations amendment that will cut spending by limiting farm payments to mega farms instead of making massive cuts. Payment limits save money and would also limit the subsidies that mega farms use to smaller farms out of business. The Senate must chose to support this amendment and save money through long needed reforms that limit farm payments to mega farms.

PLEASE Act Now to Make a Difference!

Call the Senate switchboard - 202-224-3121

Please call your Senators as early in this morning as possible and leave a message with the receptionist.
• Urge them to cut spending by limiting payments to mega farms.
• Urge them to support the Grassley-Dorgan amendment on payment limitations.

Please let others know about this alert so people you know who might be interested can take action!

Thank you for your support.

- for more information post a question or comment here or
contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Nussle: "We Have Already Destroyed Our Rural Communities"

- from the desk of John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org, (402) 687-2103 ext. 1010

Nussle: "We Have Already Destroyed Our Rural Communities"

Lyons, NE – The Center for Rural Affairs recently released a newsletter article reporting on comments made by Representative Jim Nussle (R-IA) at a recent meeting with farmers and representatives of the Center for Rural Affairs regarding proposed farm program payment limitations in the ongoing federal budget reconciliation debate.

The article, which will appear in the November 2005 edition of the Center for Rural Affairs’ monthly newsletter, contained the following report of the meeting and Representative Nussle’s comments:On October 12th Center for Rural Affairs staffers and several Iowa farmers met in Holstein, Iowa with Congressman Jim Nussle (R-IA) to advocate for limits on farm program payments to mega farms.

Representative Nussle, House Budget Committee Chair, made it clear that his support for payment limitations is tenuous and tempered by his view that economic decline in rural America has been building for decades.

He contended that we have already destroyed our rural communities, that we have hardly any family farms left, and that the genie cannot be put back in the bottle (emphasis added).

To read the newsletter article in its entirety (407 words), go to http://www.cfra.org/newsroom/newsreleases/102605_nussle.htm

“It is difficult to imagine a more cynical view of the future of rural America. We have lost too many family farms, and rural communities do face stern challenges. But there are solutions,” said John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs and author of the article. “And no one, least of all Representative Nussle, should count out rural Iowans and their rural neighbors in other states while there is so much to fight for and so much fight left in them,” added Crabtree.

“The single most effective thing that Congress can do to revitalize family farms is limit farm subsidies that mega farms use to drive smaller operations out of business,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs. “Representative Nussle is wrong; there are things we can do. We can do this. With determined leadership from Midwesterners in Congress, we can and will,” continued Hassebrook.

Traci Bruckner of the Center for Rural Affairs, who attended the meeting, expressed concern about Representative Nussle, House Budget Committee Chair, allowing this view to impact the ongoing budget reconciliation debate. “Economic decline in the rural Midwest is not a reason to avoid payment limitations reform. On the contrary, it is the most compelling reason for payment limits,” stated Bruckner.

“Representative Nussle should listen to the voices of citizens from across Iowa and the Midwest who are calling for payment limits. To lose hope now, when we have come so far, when we are so close – would be unforgivable,” cautioned Bruckner. “If his views on rural communities are other than he contended at our meeting, the best way to demonstrate that would be to stand up, support payment limitations publicly and commit to providing determined leadership to get the job done,” said Bruckner.

The House Agriculture Committee is slated to discuss budget reconciliation tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. (EDT) in room 1300, Longworth Building. Their proposed cuts, if passed, will then be reported to the House Budget Committee. Final committee action and floor votes are expected in both the House and Senate in November.

Established in 1973, the Center for Rural Affairs is a private, non-profit organization working to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities through action oriented programs addressing social, economic, and environmental issues.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact -
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org
Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.