Omaha World-Herald. March 3, 2017
Congress has a very tough row to hoe with farm bill
The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the committee’s top Democratic member traveled to the Kansas State University campus last week and kicked off the hearing process to craft the next farm bill. The Midlands and the rest of the nation’s farm country should hope the legislative process goes far more productively than last time.
Development of the current farm bill, which runs through September 2018, was supposed to be a two-year process. Instead it wound up being a four-year endurance test in which tensions ran high and setbacks were frequent.
Among the chaotic episodes was a 2013 vote by the Senate Ag Committee. The committee majority approved a version of the farm bill that tilted so heavily toward Southern row-crop interests that it actually received “no” votes from three Great Plains lawmakers, including then-Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, a former U.S. secretary of agriculture.
A more balanced approach was adopted in the bill’s final form the next year.
At the Kansas State campus last week, the leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee heard testimony from 21 citizens - farmers, ranchers, bankers, co-op officials. The hearing was chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the committee chairman, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat.
Net farm income this year is projected to be $62.3 billion, falling to the lowest level since 2002, the federal Economic Research Service reports.
The pattern is evident in Nebraska. Profits for the state’s ag producers last year totaled about $4 billion, down from $7.5 billion in 2013.
Crop insurance received much attention from testifiers at the Kansas hearing. Such support has proven vital at a time when farm income has dropped at so many operations, producers said.
Some testifiers voiced frustration with the complexity of applying for the farm bill’s safety-net provisions. Additional criticism was aimed at burdens from federal regulations.
Several producers praised the farm bill’s support for conservation efforts.
Although trade issues aren’t a part of the farm bill, many testifiers pointed to the importance of opening up new markets overseas and maintaining existing ones.
“We can produce bumper crops,” one Kansas corn producer said. “We need the ability to access trade.”
Roberts and his counterparts in the U.S. House are aiming to get the next farm bill ready for approval by 2018.
The last time around, the obstacles were considerable, and many of them appear likely for the upcoming round of debate:
“ Urban-dominated Congress. Of the House’s 435 congressional districts, only 34 have an economy that’s predominantly agricultural. That makes it tough to win over enough urban votes for ag- related legislation.
“ Food stamp funding. To win farm bill support from urban lawmakers, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is included in the legislation. This food stamp component actually makes up the majority of the farm bill funding.
Cutting back SNAP funding was a major priority for conservative advocacy groups and Republican budget hawks during the previous farm bill debate. The issue was the main reason the farm bill at one point failed to pass the House.
“ Regional farm differences. Jostling between Southern and Midwestern farm interests routinely complicates efforts to craft the farm bill, as Johanns’ “no” vote in 2013 illustrated.
“ Income caps. Efforts were made to limit crop insurance to producers with incomes below a certain threshold. It’s a hotly contested matter, and the income caps ultimately were rejected. The issue is quite likely to come up next time.
Midlands lawmakers have made clear they understand the difficulty in passing a farm bill. They have a vital obligation to stand up for our region’s agricultural interests as Congress wrestles once again with this issue.
__
Lincoln Journal Star. March 2, 2017
Delegation should stand against Putin
Nebraskans of all political persuasions should be glad that Sen. Ben Sasse is pushing the Trump administration to take a tough line against Russia and strongman Vladimir Putin.
The rest of Nebraska’s congressional delegation should follow suit.
“Putin is a bad guy,” Sasse said at an appearance last week at the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce.
He mentioned some of the obvious reasons why the United States should be ready to push back against Putin, including Russia’s “horrific incursion” into Crimea and Ukraine, and its attempts to disrupt elections in Europe.
That was hardly the first time Sasse has voiced such criticism. In an interview last month with ABC News, Sasse pointed out that, “Putin is an enemy of political dissent. The U.S. celebrates political dissent and the right for people to argue free from violence about places or ideas that are in conflict.”
He added, “There is no moral equivalency between the United States of America, the greatest freedom living nation in the history of the world and the murderous thugs that are in defense of his cronyism.”
Sasse has also voiced “full support” for an investigation into Russia’s activities in the U.S. election and the events surrounding the resignation of Michael Flynn as Trump’s national security adviser after Flynn reportedly lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
There are too many members of Congress who want to soft-pedal that bipartisan investigation and who seemingly are supportive of cozier relations with Putin.
Rep. Steve King of Iowa, for example, said the allegation that Russian hackers meddled in the U.S. election was a “CNN narrative.”
Actually that assertion came from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. intelligence agencies.
Even more alarming was the statement earlier this week from Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who heads the House Intelligence Committee, “We can’t have the government, the U.S. government or the Congress, legislative branch of government chasing down American citizens, hauling them before the Congress as if they’re some secret Russian agent.”
Sen. Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, characterized Nunes’ comments as “interference” and said they raise “huge concerns.”
In order to keep the pending congressional investigation on a bipartisan track, more Republican members of Congress need to weigh in on Russia’s toxic role in international affairs and to voice support for a thorough investigation. It’s time for the rest of the Nebraska delegation to step up.
__
McCook Daily Gazette. March 1, 2017
WOTUS action a step in right direction
On the 150th anniversary of a state named after a Native American term for “flat water,” Nebraska leaders are celebrating President Trump’s move to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Obama Administration’s controversial “Waters of the United States” rule.
Water is Nebraska’s most valuable natural resource, and McCook residents are reminded of the need to protect it every time they pay their city water bill.
That bill reflects the cost of a $14 million water treatment plant and the million dollars a year it takes to remove pollution like nitrates, arsenic and uranium from well water before sending it to our taps.
But Obama’s WOTUS rule had the potential to make a federal case out of every construction or land improvement plan for a good chunk of the state.
That’s because it exploited ambiguity in previous court rulings to extend EPA authority, for instance, for land within 1,500 feet of the borders of a 100-year flood plain.
That covers some of the most desirable land in the state. Plan to level land to install a center-pivot irrigation system or a golf course, and you might run afoul of federal rules.
The documents Trump signed Tuesday direct the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the Obama administration’s WOTUS rule.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 originally protected “navigable” waters from pollution, but over the years, despite the best efforts of Congress and administrations, the Army Corps of Engineers and courts interpreted the act different in different regions of the country.
The Obama administration tried to settle the question once for all in 2015, but farmers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, real estate developers, golf course owners and political leaders felt it went too far.
“WOTUS is a dangerous overreach, giving the EPA the power to dictate local land use decisions and farming practices nationwide,” said U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith.
“Since the rule’s introduction, Nebraskans have expressed deep concerns about federal agencies having control over the water puddles and irrigation ditches on their properties. Local officials have told me about infrastructure projects, such as cleaning and widening a drainage ditch, which have been needlessly delayed due to WOTUS red tape.
“The Obama administration refused to listen to the concerns of agriculture producers. I’m glad President Trump is listening. His order to reset WOTUS is a victory not only for farmers and ranchers but for all Americans eager for regulatory relief.”
Smith is the founder and co-chairman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus.
Gov. Pete Ricketts and U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer had similar praise.
President Trump sounded a conciliatory tone in Tuesday night’s address to a joint session of Congress and has expressed a desire to reach middle ground on the most controversial of subjects, such as repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act.
In that climate, there’s a better chance the EPA, congressional leaders and regulators will reach a compromise that’s acceptable to both developers and environmental interests.
____
The Grand Island Independent. Feb. 28, 2017
State needs to reconsider mandatory minimums
The Nebraska Legislature has two options this year for addressing problems created by the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing requirements.
Currently, judges are required to sentence people convicted of 1C felonies to at least five years in prison and those convicted of 1D felonies to at least three years in prison. These categories include robbery, possession of 10 or more grams of certain drugs, assault on a police officer and manufacturing or distribution of child pornography. Also, offenders determined to be habitual criminals are subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years added to the sentence for their crime.
Sen. Paul Schumacher, who is a former county attorney, has introduced a bill that would set up a process for a three-judge panel to consider bypassing a mandatory minimum for a specific case involving a nonviolent drug offense if requested by the presiding judge. It would also allow a review of a habitual criminal mandatory sentencing.
Right now, even if the judge feels probation or a lesser prison sentence is merited for a first-time offender, the judge has no recourse.
But Schumacher’s bill would make it possible for judges randomly selected by the Nebraska Supreme Court’s chief justice to review whether the mandatory minimum is appropriate for a particular offender.
This would help reduce overcrowding in Nebraska’s prisons as well as give first offenders the opportunity to stay out of prison, where they would likely be associating with hardened criminals who would influence them to continue breaking the law.
The other option before the Legislature is a bill introduced by Sen. Ernie Chambers that would do away with mandatory minimum sentences for 1D and 1C felonies.
This may be a harder sell with the Legislature because of concerns of prosecutors who use the threat of harsh sentences to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser crimes. But Schumacher’s bill is a conservative approach to the issue that could make sentencing in Nebraska more fair to first-time offenders and help reduce prison crowding.
The Nebraska Criminal Defense Attorneys Association supported both bills when they were presented to the Judiciary Committee.
“I’ve had judges state on the record at the time of sentencing that they would use probation, but they have no choice,” said Spike Eickholt of the NCDAA.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affect black men, who are four or five times more likely than white people to be convicted of drug possession.
The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services has estimated Chambers’ bill would save the state more than $180,000 in 2019. It also estimated Schumacher’s bill would save the state money, but didn’t have a specific number.
There are nine other states, including Iowa, that have recently passed laws reducing their mandatory minimum penalties for many drug offenders. It’s time that Nebraska legislators seriously consider making it 10.
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.