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The measure was originally enacted into law by being inserted into an unrelated spending bill and is set to expire later this year.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

Health Care Policy

The World According to Stupak

By Jessica Arons

March 2, 2010

President Obama's healthcare proposal adopts language on abortion from the Senate health reform bill that requires insurers to segregate public and private premiums and use only private money to pay for abortion services. But Representative Bart Stupak will have none of it, claiming that the legislation still allows public funding of the abortion. In fact, the legislation very clearly prohibits direct government funding of abortion. But Stupak also objects to "indirect" funding, refusing to vote for a reform bill unless it prohibits taxpayer money from "subsidizing" health plans that cover abortion care.

The amendment Stupak sponsored, which is currently part of the House bill, does bar so-called indirect funding. It forbids insurers from selling plans that include abortion coverage to any people who receive help from the government in paying their premiums--a restriction that would apply to approximately 85 percent of customers in the new health insurance exchange and thus virtually eliminate abortion coverage from the exchange.

An analysis of Stupak's opposition to indirect funding, however, reveals implications that go well beyond the fight over abortion.

Money in Stupak's world is "fungible," or interchangeable, meaning whatever money the government gives you frees up private money for you to use on something else. So every dollar the government pays toward your health insurance premium allows you and the insurer to spend private funds in that plan that you might not otherwise have had on abortion. To Stupak, that subsidization is the equivalent of a direct payment.

But by that token, every government benefit a woman receives, whether monetary or in-kind, whether for healthcare or for something else, could be seen as subsidizing an abortion if she has one.

If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:

(1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;

(2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;

(3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;

(4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;

(5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.

Would anyone argue that the government is "subsidizing abortion" by building roads and sidewalks, offering public transportation, developing medicine and providing childcare? Similarly, making healthcare premiums more affordable, even for plans that include abortion coverage, would not mean that the government would be paying for abortion.

Our society recognizes the distinction between direct and indirect funding all the time. Indeed, if we did not, our government probably could not function. Religious organizations receive tax money to provide direct social services but are strictly prohibited from using that money for sectarian purposes. Nonprofit organizations obtain government grants that can be used for charitable activities but not for electioneering. And we already have a precedent with respect to abortion: family planning clinics get public funding to provide contraception that cannot be spent on abortion. No reasonable person sees this funding as subsidizing activities that have been deemed ineligible for government spending or views the accounting practices used to segregate funds as illegitimate or inadequate.

No transaction in our modern society is completely free of government involvement. The food we eat costs less because of farm subsidies. Students attend private universities with the help of Pell Grants and Stafford loans. Our churches and temples can afford to operate in part because they are tax-exempt. And employers who offer health insurance do so because of tax incentives. Stupak's reasoning, taken to its logical extreme, would mean that virtually every activity in which we engage is government funded, regardless of whether it is condoned or condemned.

Either there is no such thing as indirect funding or everything receives indirect funding, but there is no in between. Either the government pays for abortion or it does not. Stupak, who until recently lived in the "C Street House"--a townhouse owned by a religiously affiliated organization that receives a tax exemption--cannot accept indirect subsidies in one area but reject them in others.

For these reasons, segregation requirements alone should have been sufficient for those who object to taxpayer-funded abortion. But Senator Ben Nelson also managed to wrangle a last-minute deal that goes even further, making customers write two checks each month--one for the abortion coverage and one for everything else--even though both checks would come from private, not public, sources.

Last week the White House chose to go with the Senate solution, in part because Democrats must now use the reconciliation process to pass comprehensive healthcare reform. Because this process can address only items that affect the budget and the abortion provisions do not change government spending levels, they probably can no longer be modified. Therefore, the White House may have had no option but to endorse the Senate's version.

Moreover, prochoice legislators and advocates refuse to accept the Stupak Amendment and have vowed to block it at every turn. And though they also oppose Nelson's language because it imposes unprecedented restrictions on private abortion coverage, they recognize that it is the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, Stupak claims that he too has enough votes to stop health reform in its tracks.

But Stupak's line of thinking goes way too far. He and the House members who voted for his amendment ought to accept the Senate language that already prohibits government money from being spent on abortion, put the issue to rest and take this historic opportunity to extend health coverage to millions of Americans.

About Jessica Arons

Jessica Arons is the Director of the Women's Health & Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

Intercontinental Cry

Dept. rules against native rights, says Eagle Rock isn’t sacred

Posted by Ahni on January 21, 2010 at 10:04am 0 comments 305 views

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, has shamelessly and underhandedly given its final approval for Kennecott’s proposed Eagle Mine project, a nickel and copper sulfide mine on the Yellow Dog Plains.

In issuing the approval, the MDEQ overstepped the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community’s treaty rights, and dismissed a 2009 ruling by Administrative Law Judge Richard Patterson, who found that Eagle Rock is a place of spiritual importance to Keweenaw Bay Community and should be protected.

Judge Patterson, in his ruling, stated that both Kennecott and the MDEQ “did not properly address the impact on the sacred rock outcrop known as Eagle Rock” and suggested that they move the mine’s entry point somewhere “away from the rock”.

The MDEQ unilaterally decided that the judge’s ruling was unnecessary “…because it pertained to Eagle Rock as a place of worship. They believe that a place of worship must be a building and therefore negates comments that were not in favor of the mining company,” explains the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, who works along side the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and others opposed to the mine.

However, the MDEQ did much more than dismiss the ruling and deny the sacredness of Eagle Rock. First, it handed the matter down to a Senior Policy Advisor, who made the decision on his own and just two days before the MDEQ was formally dissolved.

Cynthia Pryor, Campaign Director for the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, comments:

“What just happened here? The DEQ, as party to a State of Michigan Administrative Contested Case process, just unilaterally bypassed both the legal process and Administrative Law Judge Patterson in making a sweeping declaration and finding of law. This sweeping “judgment” was made not by Judge Patterson, not by past DEQ Director Stephen Chester, not by the interim DEQ Director Jim Sygo, but by a Senior Policy Advisor within the DEQ. This was done as a final DEQ action on the matter – on the day before the DEQ was to be dissolved and the new DNRE Director was to take office.

“How blatant can this be? This is the dramatic action of a DEQ that hopes as a last ditch effort to resolve the Kennecott issue and allow this mine on the Yellow Dog Plains – before their authority is superseded by a new agency. Delegation of DEQ Director ‘final decision’ on the matter, was given to Senior Policy Advisor Frank J. Ruswick, Jr. two weeks ago. There was no known correspondence from Judge Patterson to the DEQ, Kennecott or the petitioners during this time frame. But out of the blue, a day before DEQ dissolution, this DEQ policy advisor made a judgment, ruling and order granting Kennecott both a Part 632 mining permit and a ground water discharge permit AND vacating a remand order made by then Director Stephen Chester concerning Eagle Rock as a “place of worship”. A policy advisor of the DEQ became a Judge and a DEQ Director and has so ruled – and we must accept that?

This is an egregious act that now will absolutely require appeal to a higher court and should require an appeal to the new DNRE Director Rebecca Humphries and the Governor of this state. We should not sit by and accept such action as the accepted mode of “lawfulness” in this state.

For more information, please visit: http://savethewildup.org, http://lakesuperiorminingnews.net, http://yellowdogwatershed.org

What You Can Do

To lodge a complaint against the MDEQ’s shameful move, contact Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm:

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909

PHONE: (517) 373-3400
PHONE: (517) 335-7858 – Constituent Services
FAX:(517) 335-6863
EMAIL: http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995-65331–,00.html

.

The Huron Mountain Club, National Wildlife Federation, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community have long opposed the project because of some major environmental concerns, and because the mine would adversely effect the Keweenaw Bay Community’s treaty rights and Spiritual practices.

In 2009, Judge Richard Patterson issued a ruling that partly–and only partly—favored Keweenaw Bay

ignoring Judge Richard Patterson ruling that Eagle Rock be honored as a Native American sacred site.

Kennecott the final permit for the Eagle Mine project on the Yellow Dog Plains, ignoring Judge Richard Patterson ruling that Eagle Rock be honored as a Native American sacred site.

concluding that only buildings may be considered “places of worship.”

tatement was issued giving “final approval” of mining permits that were being contested by Huron Mountain Club, National Wildlife Federation, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The approval was given before the administrative law judge had submitted a clarification of his ruling. The MDEQ stated the judge’s ruling was not needed since it pertained to Eagle Rock as a place of worship. They believe that a place of worship must be a building and therefore negates comments that were not in favor of the mining company.

• About

• This entry was posted by Ahni on January 21, 2010 at 10:04am. There are No Comments

• 

• Spread the Word

• If you found this article useful please tell others about it

Whitmer: State must protect its consumers

MISenDems (via Twitter)

Whitmer: State must protect its consumers

New law needed to put teeth into enforcement

As Michigan residents hit the stores this holiday season, they shop with confidence assuming they will be dealt with fairly and honestly. That may be true at the mall or most retail stores, but unfortunately, there are many other instances where consumers could be at risk of being taken advantage of. The state's economic woes have caused an increase in scams and other bad business practices.

At the same time, Michigan's Consumer Protection Act - once revered as the most powerful in the country - continues to be watered down by politicians and their special interests.

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act was a bipartisan agreement instituted in 1976 that banned 29 unfair, deceptive or unconscionable business practices in the sale of goods and services and empowered the state attorney general to go to court to stop such conduct.

But over the last decade, it has been gutted by a Republican majority in the Michigan Supreme Court installed by Gov. John Engler. In two cases, the first in 1999 and the second in 2007, the court ruled to exempt most, if not all, businesses regulated by state or federal law, such as home improvement contractors, mortgage companies and plumbers.

These rulings broke 23 years of enforcement that the attorney general and consumer advocates relied on to hold businesses accountable for deceptive and unfair practices.

Many consumers are already struggling to make ends meet and support their families. Dishonest merchants can currently take advantage of customers in nearly every industry including credit and finance; gasoline, fuel and energy; and telecommunications, satellite and cable TV. With no teeth left in the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, there is nothing to keep businesses from taking advantage of Michigan citizens and leaves consumers with few options to defend themselves. We must properly hold deceitful businesses accountable for their practices.

That's why Michigan needs to restore the original intent of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and I have introduced legislation in the Senate to do just that.

My bill, Senate Bill 573, will not only restore the act's true intent of consumer protection, but also help Michigan businesses compete on a level playing field instead of enabling companies to obtain a competitive edge by engaging in deceptive or unfair practices.

The Legislature no longer can sit idly by and allow Michigan's consumer protection law to continue to cater to unscrupulous businesses more than our citizens.

Too many of our state laws have been tinkered with to give more power to big business than the people, and now more than ever we should be putting our consumers first and keep Michigan's upstanding businesses competing fairly.

Passing my legislation and bolstering the Consumer Protection Act can help restore our reputation as a state that stands up for its citizens, and I hope my colleagues see its importance and address it soon.

Is Bart Stupak a Democrat?

Northeast Michigan Democrat

Aside from "not voting" on many issues, Rep. Stupak votes with the Republicans on occassion according to the U.S. Congress Votes Database. He certainly does not stand firm with the Democratic National Platform:

THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORM

RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE


Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed
choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education
help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for
abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring
access to and availability of programs for pre-and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Copyright © 2008 by the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc.
For more information, contact: Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-863-8000
www.democrats.org