Debbie Stabenow Pledges To Oppose Monsanto Protection Act Extension Without Full Debate

Ryan Grim Become a fan

ryan@huffingtonpost.com

 

Debbie Stabenow Pledges To Oppose Monsanto Protection Act Extension Without Full Debate

Posted: 06/06/2013 11:41 am EDT  |  Updated: 06/06/2013 5:52 pm EDT

Follow:

Video, Jeff Merkley, Roy Blunt , Roy Blunt Monsanto, Debbie Stabenow, Debbie Stabenow Monsanto, Debbie Stabenow Monsanto Protection Act, Jeff Merkley Monsanto, Jeff Merkley Monsanto Protection Act, Monsanto Protection Act, Roy Blunt Monsanto Protection Act, Politics News

 

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, pledged to oppose the extension of the so-called the Monsanto Protection Act, a victory for advocates who have been pressing for its repeal.

Stabenow made her pledge in a conversation with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who has been pushing the Senate to vote on an amendment to the farm bill that would repeal the provision. That vote was blocked by Republicans and on Thursday morning the Senate voted to end debate and move to final passage.
When two senators have a pre-arranged public conversation on the Senate floor, it's known as a colloquy and is typically the bow that ties up a deal struck beforehand. While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant win for him, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.

Monsanto is a global seed and herbicide company that specializes in genetically modified crops. The MPA prevents judges from enforcing injunctions on genetically modified seeds even if they are deemed unsafe. Monsanto has argued that it is unfair to single the company out in the nickname for the law, which is technically known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, when other major agribusiness players also support it.

The measure was originally enacted into law by being inserted into an unrelated spending bill and is set to expire later this year. "The Monsanto Protection Act refers to a policy rider the House slipped into the recently passed continuing resolution and sent over to the Senate," Merkley noted on the floor. "Because of the time-urgent consideration of this must-pass legislation -- necessary to avert a government shutdown -- this policy rider slipped through without examination or debate."

"I wish to assure my friend that I think it would be inappropriate for that language to be adopted in a conference committee or otherwise adopted in a manner designed to bypass open debate in the relevant committees and this chamber," Stabenow told Merkley. "I will do my best to oppose any effort to add this kind of extension in the conference committee on this farm bill or to otherwise extend it without appropriate legislative examination."

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Sen Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) made the case for the MPA, arguing that the measure aimed to protect farmers who had already purchased seeds that were later deemed unsafe. "I was raised -- my mom and dad were dairy farmers -- once you've made a decision to plant a crop for that year, you can't go back and undo that decision," he said. Requiring Monsanto or other seed companies to compensate the farmer for lost income wasn't a viable strategy, he said, if the seeds had previously been okayed before the court ruling. "You can't sue them for selling a crop that the federal government said is okay to plant," he said.

The measure enables the secretary of the Department of Agriculture to block a judicial injunction and allow the planting of a seed. The USDA, he said, called the provision redundant. "All that did was repeat authority that the secretary in a hearing the other day ... said he already had," Blunt said. "And it didn't require the secretary to do anything that the secretary thought was the wrong thing to do. Which is one of the reasons I thought it was fine."

US Senator Sabenow on GM Foods

Dear [Bear Market Economics] ,  Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding genetically modified (GM) food. I understand your concerns about the need for a robust, secure supply of a range of foods, including organics.    Agriculture is Michigan's second largest industry, employing one out of four people in our state, and that is due in large part to the strength of family farms. Our farms have the most crop diversity in the country, beside California, and provide healthy, affordable food to our communities. As the Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am mindful that we have almost seven billion mouths to feed around the globe and that we need American leadership, innovation, and increased efficiency to feed the world. To foster that innovation, we need a regulatory system that is science-based and efficient. I support increased research on the safety and effectiveness of GM crops, and I will continue to monitor this issue and will make sure that the regulation of GM foods is based on sound science.     Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family. Sincerely, Debbie Stabenow United States Senator

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow The United States Senate • Washington, DC 20510 stabenow.senate.gov

Survey: Michigan Officials Shun Citizen Input

Democracy Tree

Watchdog Commentary on All Three Branches of Government

 

Survey: Michigan Officials Shun Citizen Input

Posted on June 2, 2013 by admin

 

 

Are Michigan’s elected leaders open to citizen input? If the Republican-led legislature and the governor are any indication, the answer is a resounding “NO!”

Starting with the Emergency Manager law of 2011, and its equally evil successor, the tone was set on the topic of citizen input — Michigan was no longer a “government by the people” state. Close on the heels of the rough-shod rush to re-legislate the EM law in defiance of the sucessful referendum to repeal it, Michigan workers were next attacked with an unwanted Right-to-Work law, then a wolf hunt law was passed in the face of overwhelming lack of citizen support, and most recently we see these same petty lawmakers claiming they are so damned principled that they are willing to deny healthcare to the working poor. 

At eye-level on the door to my township hall is a decal that says “Citizen Driven” — it’s the first thing you see upon entering the building. It was placed there by the previous township supervisor, who was truly dedicated to a government by the people. He demonstrated his commitment to open democracy by forming citizen’s advisory committees to address key concerns in the community. Robust public input was a hallmark of his time in office. At times, the business community kicked and screamed when they didn’t automatically get their way through their routine bullying and intimidation, but our leaders understood they were there to serve those residents that elected them.

Our little community stood in stark contrast to what was happening across the state, as the residents of the cities of Flint, Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, and the school districts of Muskegon Heights, Highland Park and Detroit lost all say in their governance under the forced brutality of emergency management.
Yet, towns and cities don’t necessarily need an Emergency Manager to lose sight of the democratic process. At a recent Traverse City Council meeting, Mayor Estes threatened a citizen speaker with arrest, and then recessed the meeting to prevent her from further expressing her opinion. He claimed she was off-topic, but the video record begs to differ.

How prevalent is this kind of anti-input attitude? Much more so than one would think…

The Michigan Public Policy Institute just published their findings in part 2 of their research series on citizen involvement in government. The report is based on the results of a statewide survey of local government leaders taken in the Fall of 2012. Among the key findings are:

Most local leaders in Michigan believe citizens should provide input to the policy making process, though relatively few think citizens should be deeply involved. Overall, 17 %  of local leaders say citizens should simply stay informed about policy issues, while 64% say citizens should provide some input. Few see deeper roles for citizens, whether by identifying policy options from which officials would choose (7%), by recommending specific policy choices (9%), or actually making decisions on behalf of the local government (1%).

(Yes, that adds up to only 98 percent, because 2 percent of elected officials actually answered “don’t know”.)

In short, a whopping 81 percent believe in limited or no citizen input.

So, what then is the best way to be heard on local policy decisions? Besides standing-up at the public comment portion of a meeting, it is best to send both a snail-mail and an email to all elected officials. Request that your letter be included in their meeting’s agenda packet under “correspondence”. On the letter, list all recipients copied. Send a similar letter to the editor of your local paper expressing your policy concerns.

In policymaking matters, much like with voting, bitching rights are tied to your level of involvement.

Amy Kerr Hardin
In loving memory of our young friend Owen, whom at the age of 17, we lost unexpectedly last Friday. He is loved by so many, and missed by all. https://www.facebook.com/#!/OwenWilliamsonInLovingMemory?fref=ts