The Debate over the Future of Rural America Begins

Congress is beginning deliberations over a new farm and rural policy bill slated for this year.

You have a unique opportunity to make a difference.

--- editor's note - the following action alert was sent to our supporters in Iowa. Obviously, if you are outside Iowa you should communicate with your Senators and Representative. If you need to know who to write to, post a question here or contact me, johnc@cfra.org. Letters from the 7th district in Minnesota to Representative Collin Peterson, House Ag Committee Chair, are also particularly important. But all of our Senators and Representatives need to hear from us.

Senator Tom Harkin chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee. Under his leadership, Congress will decide whether to continue subsidizing mega farms to drive smaller operations out of business, or target support to family size farms and invest in proven strategies to revitalize rural America. If we don’t speak out now, Congress will likely continue the failed approach of subsidizing the destruction of family farming.

Your letter to your Senator will influence the outcome and help shape the future of rural America. Early letters matter most because they help shape the debate before positions are hardened. With your help, we will reach our goal of 500 letters to Senator Harkin by March 15.

Please write today to Senator Tom Harkin, Attention Susan Keith, Room 328A, Russell Senate Building, Washington DC 20510; Fax 202 228 4576; or email susan_keith@agriculture.senate.gov. Key points to make include:

Close the loopholes and make the paper limits real. Stop allowing mega farms to increase payments by subdividing on paper into multiple entities or between spouses. Limits should be limits, regardless of how farms are organized.

Without real limits, farm programs don’t work. They subsidize mega farms to drive smaller operations out of business by bidding land away from them. And large, aggressively expanding producers bid farm their payments into land prices, forcing everyone to higher rent and property taxes. Unlimited farm programs do nothing to increase operators' incomes except on previously owned land.

Just say no to any farm bill without meaningful payment limitations. Rural America cannot afford another farm bill that destroys family farming.

Describe your farm – the struggles you face and how real payment limitations would make a difference. This makes your letter unique and demonstrates you are a truly concerned citizen with opinions that deserve to be heard.

Good letters don’t have to be long – one page is more than enough. Typed or hand written is fine. In email, it is essential to include your name and address so they know you are a constituent.

Farm bill discussions are starting so please send the letter or email soon. This farm bill should be about the people of rural America. By writing, you are taking responsibility for shaping our future. We cannot expect others to help us, if we don’t act ourselves. The future of rural America is in our hands.

Please let us know you have taken action and taken responsibility for the future of rural America.

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Nebraska Legislative Update

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
MARCH 30, 2007

Revenue Committee Tax Cut Plan Finalized: A “Little” Something For Everyone

On March 29, the Revenue Committee finalized its tax cut proposal on a 7-0 vote (Sen. White abstaining for reasons explained below). Members of the committee and news reports claim the plan has “a little something for everyone,” with, as you will see below, “little” being the key point for many taxpayers.

The package totals $418 million over the next two years. This amount will have to fit in the budget the Appropriations Committee is currently developing. The plan will be rolled into and presented to the Legislature as LB 367. Key components of the Revenue Committee’s tax cut plan include:

A property tax credit to all landowners equal to 8 cents per $100 valuation in 2007-08 and 4 cents per $100 valuation in 2008-09, or about $80 for the owner of a $100,000 home in the first year ($40 in the second year). The credit will equal $100 million in 2007-08 and $50 million in 2008-09.
In the second year, reduce of school property tax levies from $1.05 to $1 per $100 of valuation; this will cost $60 million in additional state aid to schools. It is estimated that the property tax credit and additional school aid will reduce property taxes by 5 cents per $100 valuation in the second year.
Lower the top income bracket from 6.84 percent to 6.65 percent.
Eliminate the “marriage penalty” by increasing the income tax standard deduction for married couples by $1,800 and increasing the amount of income for married couples in the top income tax bracket (from $50,000 to $54,000). All income tax changes are retroactive to January 1, 2007.
The income tax changes would reduce revenue by $108 million in 2007-08 and by $87 million in 2008-09.
Raise to $2 million (from $1 million) the size of estates subject to the state estate tax. This change would reduce revenue by $2 million in 2008-09.
Repeal the sales tax on labor for commercial construction. This change would reduce revenue by $15 million over the two years.
Creates a tax credit for renewable energy production, the estimated revenue cost of which is $160,000 over two years.

For most low- and moderate-income taxpayers this package provides few benefits. Property tax credits will total less than $100 over two years for most rural non-farm homeowners. The property tax credit will provide greater benefits to farmers and ranchers, and, in fact, provides greater benefits for farmers and ranchers than did earlier versions of the property tax credit that provided a flat amount to homeowners. Depending on the amount of land owned, its value, and one’s property tax obligation, the property tax credit could be in the thousands of dollars for farm and ranch households. Higher income earners will be the chief beneficiaries of the income tax changes, with married taxpayers benefiting from the higher standard deduction and some middle-income married income taxpayers benefiting from a lower rate.

Sen. White abstained from the final committee vote in order to keep open the option of attempting to amend the package to include his $500 tax credit for property taxes paid by homeowners. The tax relief package is slightly smaller than that proposed by Governor Heinemann in January. The Governor proposed about $240 million in tax relief in the first year, mostly in income tax changes and with no property tax relief. However, the Governor seemed to express support for the committee’s plan.

Bills Update

As in the past, we will divide into categories the bills we are working on or tracking. Any bill designated a Priority Bill will also have a “P” attached to its number (for example, LB 123P). The chief sponsor of the bill is listed in parentheses.

The words Support or Oppose after a bill description indicate where the Center for Rural Affairs has taken a position on the bill. If neither word is indicated, the Center has not taken a position at this time.

As bills are killed in committee or become law through floor stages, they will be deleted from the Legislative Update.

Rural Development

LB 232P (Dubas) – Modifications to the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act. On March 28, the bill was advanced to Select File on a 36-0 vote. Support
LB 498P (White) – Establishes the Business Partnership in Rural Education Program to use donated business tax incentive tax credits to raise funds for projects related to educating students for economic development needs. The bill awaits committee action
LB 567 ((Louden) – Establishes the Recreational Liability Act; generally exempts private landowners from liability for the public use of property for recreational purposes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 609 (Carlson) – Establishes the Nebraska Recruitment Promotion Act, a grant program for communities, counties, or regions losing population to develop marketing and promotional materials. The bill awaits committee action.

Agriculture

LB 46 (Hudkins) – Would create an assessment on grapes for marketing and promotional purposes. The bill awaits action on General File.
LB 69 (Hudkins) – Modifies the state value-added agriculture grant program. The bill awaits action on General File.
LB 368P (Erdman) – The Limited Cooperative Association Act. Rewrites Nebraska cooperative law. The bill awaits action on General File.
LB 488P (Wallman) – Creates an income tax credit for perpetual conservation easements. On March 27, the bill was advanced to General File by the Revenue Committee on a 5-0 vote. The bill was amended in committee to cap the credits at $5 million per year.
LB 516P (Agriculture Committee) – Establishes the Corporate Farming Policy Advisory Council. The bill is awaits committee action. Oppose
LB 633 (Dierks) – Modifications to the Competitive Livestock Markets Act regulating livestock production and marketing contracts. The bill awaits committee action. Support

Taxes

LB 177P (Janssen) – Proposed modifications to the Microenterprise Tax Credit. The bill awaits action on General File. Support
LB 331 (Janssen) – The Governor’s $1.06 billion tax cut proposal. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 366 (Janssen) – Would create a $12,000 homestead exemption from property taxes for residence and would reduce to 70% (from 75%) the value of ag land subject to property taxes and would eliminate the authority of community colleges to levy property taxes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 367 (Janssen) – The Revenue Committee’s tax cut plan (see above).
LB 453 (White) – Creates a $500 refundable income tax credit for property taxes on primary residences. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 511 (Avery) – Would exempt 10% of average assessed value of residences from property taxes and would reduce to 65% (from 75%) the value of ag land subject to property taxes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 683 (Dubas) – Would increase the earned income tax credit on the state income tax from 8% of the federal EITC to 15% of the federal credit. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 684 (Dubas) – Creates a refundable income tax credit for homeowners and ag land when property taxes exceed a percentage of the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income; known as a property tax “circuit breaker.” The bill awaits committee action. Support

Education

LB 658P (Raikes) – Would allow for the creation of new Class I school districts anywhere in the state through a reorganization and election process. On March 29, the bill was advanced to Select File on a 29-0 vote.
LB 595 (Kopplin) – Sunsets the current K-12 state aid formula in 2009 and establishes the Task Force on School Funding for Economic Growth to develop a new school funding system to recommend to the Legislature. The bill awaits committee action.

Renewable Energy

LB 9 (Preister) – Creates an income tax credit for installation or improvements to residences or businesses for energy conservation or renewable energy generation. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 343P (Langemeier) – Creates an income tax credit for investments in biodiesel facilities. On March 28, the bill was advanced to Select File on a 40-0 vote. .
LB 444 (Stuthman) – Modifies amount of renewable energy tax credit for electricity generated by new zero-emission facilities by making all such facilities eligible for the credit. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 581 (Preister) – Establishes a system of net metering for customer-generators of electricity from renewable energy sources. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 626 (Dierks) – Creates the Biodiesel Fuel Producer Incentive Fund. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 629P (Dierks) – Establishes a program for community-based wind energy development. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 648 (Preister) – Exempts from sales tax any personal property used in community-based wind projects; also modifies the renewable energy tax credit for electricity generated by new zero-emission facilities. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 672 (Lathrop) – Prohibits the eminent domain condemnation of community-based energy projects by publicly-owned utilities. The bill awaits action on General File. Support

Health Care

LB 281 (Stuthman) – Appropriates $1.25 million to the five federally qualified community health centers in the state. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 378 (Pahls) – Modifies the Small Employer Health Insurance Availability Act by adding association plans. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 531 (Nantkes) – Creates a $5,000 refundable tax credit for small business employers who offer and pay a portion of an employee health insurance plan. The bill awaits committee action. Support

Industrial Livestock and Low Feed Prices

Industrial Livestock Companies Gains from Low Feed Prices

by Timothy A. Wise and Elanor Starmer, Tufts University - Tim.Wise@tufts.edu

With rising demand for corn-based ethanol, representatives of many of the nation’s leading meat companies have expressed concern over the rising price of animal feed, which has increased significantly with the price increases for its two principal components, corn and soybeans. Feed prices have indeed increased significantly. As feed costs generally account for more than half of operating costs for industrial operations, higher prices can have an important impact on the bottom line for these companies.

So too can low prices. Any discussion of today’s high prices should take into account the extent to which these same firms have benefited from many years of feed that was priced well below what it cost to produce. In the nine years that followed the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, 1997 - 2005, corn was priced 23% below average production costs, while soybean prices were 15%
below farmers’ costs. As a result, feed prices were an estimated 21% below production costs for poultry and 26% below costs for the hog industry.

We estimate cumulative savings to the broiler chicken industry from below-cost feed in those years to be $11.25 billion, while industrial hog operations saved an estimated $8.5 billion. As we show below - http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/CompanyFeedSvgsFeb07.pdf - the leading firms gained a great deal during those years from U.S. agricultural policies that helped lower the prices for many agricultural commodities...

--- editor's note... this excerpt is from a short paper from Tufts University's Global Development And Environment Institute... you can view the entire paper at the links above or under the title of this post

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

COOL Issues Heating Up Once Again

COOL Issues Heating Up Once Again

exerpted from an article by Troy Marshall in Beef Magazine

The political wrangling for the new farm bill is starting to hit high gear. One hint is the debate over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) in which both sides are pulling out the heavy artillery.

The Food Marketing Institute (FMI), in characterizing the food industry's experience with mandatory COOL for seafood, said this week that the measure hadn't increased U.S. seafood sales but had cost the supermarket industry 10 times more than what USDA had estimated.

Meanwhile, Ranchers - Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF), the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) and consumer activist groups leveraged the latest news from Canada on BSE incidence to press for full implementation of COOL by next fall.

Practically every producer in the country agrees with COOL in theory; they like the idea of designating the country of origin at the supermarket level. But they become divided on philosophical lines when the discussion becomes voluntary vs. mandatory.

I've always believed the market functions best without government intervention. If consumers wanted it, and were willing to pay for it, food providers would already be doing it. Others believe that, regardless of the fact that consumers won't pay for it and the implementation cost is high, it still should be done. There's no question COOL will cost the industry from a profit standpoint, but a great number of producers are willing to accept the loss as a matter of principle.

It's too confusing to even try to figure out the logic of how those who support mandatory COOL are against mandatory ID. After all, ID is a prerequisite to COOL. They tout COOL as a food-safety issue, while rejecting the system that would actually protect herd health and consumer safety -- individual animal ID.

ID and COOL are similar in that the economic incentives vs. the cost to implement them simply aren't there. As a result, neither will happen without government intervention, so the economic arguments are pointless.

Rather, the debate on COOL and ID should be focused on how much disconnect there really is between the programs' goals and their ability to deliver on them. The current COOL law is a terrible law; it exempts our major competitors and doesn't apply to more than 50% of the beef market, besides violating trade laws. Implementation of COOL as currently written would be a major fiasco.

But that doesn't have to be the case. If the majority of producers want a COOL program, then let's work on getting a workable program, instead of forcing one that's destined to fail.

Relative to national ID, a voluntary program may be the stated position of the various cattlemen groups, but it's obvious that "voluntary with 100% participation" is simply another way to say "mandatory". Voluntary national ID can't meet the stated goals of the program.

It's time to lay the cards on the table, make the case for why it's in the best interest of the industry to have a traceback system, and gain consensus for a mandatory program. Either that, or accept that the industry will be unprepared in the event of a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak.

Where national ID and COOL are concerned, there's no mistaking who's at fault for these programs' not being implemented. It's the proponents, not the opponents.

Cattlemen are supportive of the concept of COOL; they understand they have to protect their herds and the consumer from the threats we face with animal disease, etc. They're looking for viable ways to achieve those goals, and voluntary ID and the current COOL law simply fall well short of the target.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Senator Tester on Payment Limits

Comments of farmer and Senator Jon Tester on the floor of the U.S. Senate speaking in favor of stricter farm bill payment limits... editor's note, this was first posted on the Rural Populist and is reproduced here courtesy of the Rural Populist - http://ruralpopulist.org...

Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for allowing me to speak. I also thank the good Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 464, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment on farm payment limitations, making those limitations max out at $250,000. That is a quarter of a million dollars. That is how much money that is going to be maxed out for individual family farmers to get. That is a reasonable request. I think it makes the farm bill more defendable to the American people.

I am a family farmer. I understand family farmers are the backbone of this country. They keep our food security there so we do not have people going hungry. What the farm program was meant to do, and has always been meant to be, is a safety net for farmers so when market prices drop they have that safety net to depend upon. There is not one farmer I know of who does not want to get their income from the marketplace. So we need to keep it that way.

We need to encourage fair trade deals. We need to encourage more competition in the marketplace. We need to make sure our freight rates are, what I would call, not abusive, if we are going to keep family farmers on the land.

Some 30 years ago, the student body in the high school I went to in a farming community had 160 kids in it. Today, that same student body is less than half that size because we have not had a farm bill that has worked for the farmers.

This amendment makes sense because it puts a cap of $250,000 on the benefits from farm program subsidies and eliminates those big agribusinesses that have been taking money they do not need, quite frankly. They do not need that safety net that the farm program subsidies provide in our farm program.

So with that, Mr. President, I ask that all the Members of the Senate support amendment No. 464, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, because it is the right thing to do.

Thank you, Senator Tester... the Rural Populist

Nebraskans - Stand Up for Rural Entrepreneurship

You have an opportunity to make a difference on a bill to strengthen rural Nebraska through support for small business and beginning farmers.

LB 177 would improve the Nebraska Micro Enterprise Investment Tax Credit (see details below). It provides a 20 percent investment tax credit up to $10,000 for owner-operated businesses with five or fewer employees. But one critical element was eliminated in committee.

The total tax credits for all microenterprises in the state would continue to be limited to $2 million per year, on a first come first serve basis. Once $2 million in tax credits are claimed, all subsequent applications are denied. Meanwhile, tax credits for big businesses are uncapped at a cost 50 - 60 times that amount.

Please call or write your Senator today using the contact information provided at -
http://www.cfra.org/take_action/alerts/ne_micro. Urge them to support LB 177 to improve microenterprise tax credits. Most importantly, urge them to amend LB 177 to remove the $2 million cap on total credits.

If we can afford over $100 million annually for big business, surely we can afford more than 1/50th of that amount for small businesses that have been the backbone and true economic engine of Nebraska's economy, especially in rural communities.

Under current law, the microenterprise tax credit applies only to new investment in plant, equipment and employees. Under LB 177, the credit would also apply to health insurance, legal services, advertising and professional fees. In agriculture, the credit would be targeted to beginning farmers and ranchers. It would also be available for diversification into nontraditional enterprises such as agritourism and specialty crops.

Please find your Senator's contact information at the links above and under the title of this post and then write or call your Senator today!

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Under Secretary Bruce Knight - COOL is Like Liver

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling implementation moving forward

Tuesday, February 20, 2007, by Tom Steever, Brownfield Radio News Network

Audio related to this story

editor's note... the views stated in this article are those of Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and do not reflect the opinions of the Center for Rural Affairs... John Crabtree, Blog for Rural America editor.

Mandatory country of origin labeling is moving toward implementation over the next year and a half, but with some changes, according to Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

“I’ll be going through things to see if there’s options for flexibility or not,” Knight told Brownfield Tuesday in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Whether people embrace the issue or not, Knight says those who are on middle ground are rare, and most do not like the original proposed rule because of its exemptions of poultry and retail food service items.

“I want to re-launch that rule making process, I want to go through a robust economic analysis (and) figure out how to make this law that’s on the books workable and implementable by September 30, 2008,” Knight said.

The administration stance is that COOL should be voluntary and market driven, according to Knight, however he says consumers are not willing to voluntarily pay for a “grown-in-the-U.S.” label. “The debate will continue,” said Knight. “It is law, however, and we will move forward and implement that law.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

I encourage those that disagree with Under Secretary Knight to call him at 202-720-4256 and let him know.

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

You Better Call Your Senators Today... about the budget

... and, for that member, your Representative too... an action alert from our friends at the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (of which the Center for Rural Affairs is a member)...

...editor's note... I know, I know, budget bills and appropriations always sound, well, boring, but reforms that we have fought for over the last decade and more as well as most of what we are trying to accomplish in the next farm bill will hang in the balance with this budget resolution, so, I am making my calls (and sending my faxes) today and urge you to do the same... john

BUDGET COMMITTEES DEBATE BUDGET BILLS IN COMING WEEK

OUTCOME WILL DETERMINE FATE OF THE 2007 FARM BILL

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PRIORITIES HANG IN THE BALANCE!

Phone calls or faxed letters are needed immediately, directed at the Senate and House Budget Committee members, to urge them to increase the spending allowances available for the writing of the 2007 Farm Bill (covering 2008 through 2012) as well as the Agricultural Appropriations bill for 2008.

i. The list of Budget Committee members follows below. If no one from your state is on the budget committee, please call or fax a very brief letter to the Chairman of the House and Senate Committee.
ii. The Senate Budget Committee will convene on Wednesday, March 14 to take up the Budget Resolution, and will start voting Thursday, March 15. The House Budget Committee intends to write its budget bill the following week.

The funding level set by Congress in the Budget Resolution will dictate how much money the Agriculture Committees can spend on the new five-year Farm Bill. The spending level set in the Budget Resolution for domestic discretionary social spending will largely determine how much money the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee will have when it writes the discretionary spending bill for next year. Our chances for winning major farm bill reform or increased funding levels for sustainable and organic programs will be determined in large part by action on the Budget Resolution.

PLEASE CALL OR FAX TODAY
The message is simple. I am a constituent and I am calling to ask Senator _______ (or Representative ________ ) to vote for a Budget Resolution that
- Increases mandatory spending levels for the 2007 Farm Bill by $20 billion; and
- Increases spending levels for the 2008 Agricultural Appropriations bill by at least $1 billion.

I believe we need to invest in conservation, renewable energy, sustainable and organic farming, rural economic development, beginning farmers and ranchers, and local and regional food systems.

It’s easy to call or write. Please call the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for your Senator’s or Representative’s office by name. Ask the Senator’s or Representative’s receptionist for the legislative aid who covers the budget resolution. If the budget aid is unavailable, leave a message with your name, phone number and the message above on the aid’s voice mail or with the receptionist.

If you prefer to write, fax a brief letter with the points above, along with your name and address and contact information, to the fax number listed in this list of Budget Committee members ---www.msawg.org/pdf/ACTION_ALERT_-_BUDGET_RESOLUTION.pdf

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Nebraska Legislative Update

NEBRASKA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Halftime!

by Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

-- editor's note... the following is excerpted from Jon Bailey's weekly legislative update, to receive a full copy of the update just send me an e-mail - johnc@cfra.org...

March 13th marks the halfway point of the 2007 session. The halfway point of the session is also the deadline for Senators and committees to designate Priority Bills. All Senators and committees designated their Priority Bills by March 9. These designations are important because Priority Bills will make up the bulk of legislative issues that will receive attention during the second half of the session.

Bills Update

Any bill designated a Priority Bill will also have a “P” attached to its number (for example, LB 123P). The chief sponsor of the bill is listed in parentheses. The words Support or Oppose after a bill description indicate where the Center for Rural Affairs has taken a position on the bill.

As bills are killed in committee or become law, they will be deleted from the update.

Rural Development

LB 232P (Dubas) – Modifications to the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act that was adopted in 2005. The bill is awaiting committee action. Sen. Karpisek designated this as his Priority Bill. Support
LB 498 (White) – Establishes the Business Partnership in Rural Education Program to use donated business tax incentive tax credits to raise funds for projects related to educating students for economic development needs. The bill awaits committee action. Sen. White designated this as his Priority Bill.
LB 567 (Louden) – Establishes the Recreational Liability Act; generally exempts private landowners from liability for the public use of property for recreational purposes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 609 (Carlson) – Establishes the Nebraska Recruitment Promotion Act, a $100,000 grant program to communities, counties, or regions losing population to develop marketing and promotional materials. A hearing was held on March 5 before the Business and Labor Committee.

Agriculture

LB 69 (Hudkins) – Modifies the state value-added agriculture grant program. The bill was advanced to General File on March 7 by unanimous vote of the Agriculture Committee. The committee amended the bill to omit a proposed 25% set-aside for specialty crops.
LB 46 (Hudkins) – The bill was advanced to General File on March 7 by unanimous vote of the Agriculture Committee. The committee amended the bill to substitute a grape assessment mechanism similar to other commodities.
LB 313 (Natural Resources Committee) – Requires those required to obtain permits for animal feeding operations to comply with the Engineers and Architects Act; it exempts small and medium animal feeding operations. The bill was approved on Final Reading on March 1 by a 31-0 vote and signed into law by the Governor on March 8.
LB 515 (Stuthman) – Would eliminate certain planning and zoning commission public hearings, specifically for conditional use applications by livestock operations. On March 7, the Agriculture Committee voted 7-0 to Indefinitely Postpone (kill) this bill. Oppose
LB 516P (Agriculture Committee) – Establishes the Corporate Farming Policy Advisory Council. The bill is awaiting committee action. The Agriculture Committee designated this as one of its Priority Bills. Oppose
LB 633 (Dierks) – Modifications to the Competitive Livestock Markets Act regulating livestock production and marketing contracts. The bill awaits committee action. Support

Education

LB 234 (Dierks) – Would reestablish Class I schools reorganized or dissolved after November 30, 2005. On February 28, the Education Committee Indefinitely Postponed the bill by unanimous vote. Support
LB 658P (Raikes) – This is the Class I bill advanced by the Education Committee. Speaker Flood also designated it as his Priority Bill. The bill would allow for the creation of new Class I school districts anywhere in the state through a reorganization and election process instituted by individuals or groups of individuals.