Talk Elections

Sponsor: Mr. Reactionary.

So we passed a big farm policy bill my first session in the Southern Chamber. Senator Scott was able to get some of it passed at the federal level. This is some more, specially tailored towards the federal government.

2-1 Just some specifics. Bill coverage includes bees and honey, mushrooms, flowers, and christmas trees but not trees sold for wood.

3-1 and 3-2 end the practice of mandatory marketing boards (farm unions) and marketing orders (farm union regulations). IRL if a minimum number of farmers of a particular product vote to form a marketing board, ALL farmers of that product must join and pay dues, even if they don't want to. This is becoming especially troublesome as farm consolidation and corporate farming allow a certain few entities to control marketing boards. They then use quasi-governmental power to price smaller farmers out of the market. SCOTUS has been all over the place on the legality recently, with them finding a Mushroom Board illegal compelled speech, but a Cattle Board legal as government speech. I think we should get rid of the corporatization of governmental power. The internet has its limits, but the current list of federal marketing boards is as follows:

Almond Board of California; American Egg Board; American Lamb Board; Cattlemen’s Beef Board; Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board; Christmas Tree Promotion Board; Cotton Board; Dairy Management Inc.; Mushroom Council; National Honey Board; National Watermelon Promotion Board; National Peanut Board; National Pork Board; National Processed Raspberry Council; Popcorn Board; US Highbush Blueberry Council; US Potato Board; United Soybean Board

and the list of marketing orders is as follows:

Almonds grown in California [7 C.F.R. 981]; Apricots grown in Washington [7 C.F.R. 922]; Avocados grown in South Florida [7 C.F.R. 915]; Cranberries grown in various States [7 C.F.R. 929]; Dates grown in California [7 C.F.R. 987]; Grapes grown in California [7 C.F.R. 925]; Hazel nuts grown in Oregon and Washington [7 C.F.R. 982]; Hog Cholera Vaccines; Irish Potatoes grown in Colorado [7 C.F.R. 948]; Irish Potatoes grown in Idaho [7 C.F.R. 945]; Irish Potatoes grown in the South [7 C.F.R. 953]; Irish Potatoes grown in Washington [7 C.F.R. 946]; Kiwifruit grown in California [7 C.F.R. 920]; Milk [7 CFR 1000]; Olives grown in California [7 C.F.R. 932]; Onions grown in Idaho [7 C.F.R. 958]; Onions grown in Texas [7 C.F.R. 959]; Oranges and Grapefruit grown in Texas [7 C.F.R. 906]; Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerine, and Tangelos grown in Florida [7 C.F.R. 905]; Peanuts [7 C.F.R. 996]; Pears and peaches grown in California [7 C.F.R. 917]; Pears grown in Oregon and Washington [7 C.F.R. 927]; Pistachios grown in southwest [7 C.F.R. 983]; Prunes in California [7 C.F.R. 993]; Raisins grown in California [7 C.F.R. 989]; Spearmint Oil [7 C.F.R. 985]; Sweet cherries grown in Washington [7 C.F.R. 923]; Sweet Onions grown in Washington [7 C.F.R. 956]; Tart cherries [7 C.F.R. 930]; Tomatoes grown in Florida [7 C.F.R. 966]; Tomatoes grown in Texas [7 C.F.R. 965]; Unregulated cranberries [7 C.F.R. 926]; Vidalia Onions grown in Georgia [7 C.F.R. 955]; Walnuts grown in California [7 C.F.R. 984]

3-3 prohibits mandatory crop set asides. IRL a program like this for raisins was struck down by SCOTUS a couple of years, suggesting they are an unconstitutional taking in violation of the 5th Amendment. Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2015). These types of programs were criticized in the Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck, being depicted as burning orange crops to create scarcity and boost prices rather than feed the poor. I believe this would affect the following products:

Almonds [7 C.F.R. 981.46]; Dates [7 C.F.R. 987.45]; Prunes [7 C.F.R. 993.56]; Raisins [7 C.F.R. 989.67]; Spearmint Oil (Active) [7 C.F.R. 985.57]; Tart Cherries (Active) [7 C.F.R. 930.54]; Walnuts [7 C.F.R. 984.54].

3-4 prohibits mandatory participation in the IRL National Animal Information System (NAIS), which requires mandatory microchipping of animals and is cost prohibitive for small farmers and violates their privacy. It is another example of smaller producers being priced out of the market by larger farm enterprises.

3-5 allows the Amish/Organic foodies to get raw milk if they want it, provided the raw milk is labeled. It also allows cow-sharing programs which are a current method used to get around raw milk regs.

This seems like solid bill that gives more freedom and flexibility for farmers while lowering prices and protecting safety for consumers.

Having been on the floor for 72 hrs with no debate for 36 hours, I hereby request unanimous consent to proceed with a final vote on this bill.

I agree to unanimous consent.

I object. With an objection having been made, unanimous consent is denied. I'll expand on the following post.

As a general principle, I'm not keen on seeing farmers riddled with excessive regulation and government guidelines that can often do more harm than good, and when it comes to the spirit of the bill I find it laudable. But I do wonder whether this doesn't go too far (and it is certainly worth a larger debate instead of going to a vote so excessively soon), and I'd appreciate if the sponsor could expand on his reasoning on a number of points which draw my curiosity:


Just how excessive would you say current regulations on marketing are, Senator? (honest question, I do not grasp the current standards) And would getting rid of the whole standards cause issue with the labeling of some products which a negative or questionable impact on health?


I cannot endorse this myself. I see why some farmers would be reluctant to it, but tracking chips can be rather important when it comes to situations such as mad cow disease, where it becomes relevant to be able to track a given, specific animal. I won't delve into other benefits (such as monitoring the overall health of productivity of said animals) because a farmer can always voluntarily choose to use chips, but there's scenarios of public concern in which tracking chips may be vital, and I think the proposed measure is rather excessive.

Its pretty excessively dumb. When I was living in Richmond, milk was almost 20 cents less per gallon than in my hometown less than 3 hrs away in the same State (in a lower cost area), because the latter was in an area under a marketing order with price floors.

Very often marketing orders limit descriptions of the produce which suggest something other than a product that is uniform. Thinks like "fresh" or "organic". This is effectively just removing competitive advantages from small farmers, as the only real way to make money with a uniform product is through larger scale economies.

Setting weight requirements also prevents certain heirloom strains of plants hybrids which may be a bit smaller from being marketed, which often creates a monopoly for hybrid seed strains which will often not breed true after a few generations which only serves to guarantee profits for Monsanto.

And territorial limits are viewed as an anticompetitive unfair trade practice in almost every other market. With modern shippung, there is no need to carve up markets in such an archaic and outdated way.

This has no effect on health. APHIS under the Ag subdepartment is responsible for health regulation. They are not bound by marketing order rules and therefore their standards for health and safety are still the minimum.



I disagree. Tracking chips are clearly a recent phenomenon as far as commercial farming goes. The reg imposes undue costs on small producers for what is currently a minimum benefit. Once meat has been butchered and processed, the ability to pair up which ground beef is from which cow would still be difficult, as its not though all beef hotdogs can bee guaranteed to only have beef from 1 cow in it. Tracking is poorly done and yet the feds still force small farmers to inject these intrusive, dystopian chips into their flocks. This crowds out small producers in favor of factory farms. Id rather you vote for the bill, but I already pulled out the controversial stuff to try and get this through and dont intend on voluntarily removing this part.



Is this sufficient to end debate now?

I motion that we proceed to a final vote on this bill.

I second it.

Thirded

I object, I'm not persuaded.

Mind you, I fully accept the argument for section 3.2 and thank you for providing the context, but I do not agree with section 3.4. I offer the following amendment:

So since this a cloture motion, we need 2/3rds correct?

I withdraw my motion for a vote.

I hereby motion for cloture to end debate.

My bad yall.

For the record I find this very irresponsible, and would warn the Senate against moving to a final vote without further debate after a mere five days, with an actual amendment proposed as well.

In any case, the rules are the rules, and we will now vote on the Cloture motion (to end debate on this bill).

Senators, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay.

Aye

Aye

Abstain

I withdraw my motion for cloture.

I find the proposed amendment extremely hostile, unfairly burdensome to small farmers, ineffective at preventing disease, and an expensive and intrusive ploy to line the pockets of big ag while pricing small producers out of the market.

Because I reject the amendment as hostile, we have to vote on it now correct?

Cloture withdrawn. Latest amendment found hostile by sponsor, we will proceed to a vote on said amendment. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Abstain

aye.

Nay

Nay

Aye.

All Senators having voted, the amendment fails.

I hereby motion for cloture to end debate.

Pursuant to the rules, we will now vote on the Cloture motion (to end debate on this bill). Senators, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Aye

Nay

Two Senators left to vote here to have a quorum.

Aye

Bump

Cloture passes. A final vote has started on this, Senators please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN:

Aye.

Aye

Abstain.

Aye

Aye.

All Senators have voted, 24 hours to change votes.

With 5 votes in favor this Bill passes the Atlasian Senate: