Tommy
Well-known member
Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country
By ROBERT W. BLACK
Star-Tribune capital bureau
CHEYENNE -- Wyoming may be deep in the heart of Bush country -- and one of the reddest of the red states -- but discontentment is brewing over the administration's handling of agricultural and trade issues.
White House support for a new trade agreement with Central America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's effort to overturn a ban on Canadian cattle imports have irked many ranchers and farmers who were among the 69 percent of Wyomingites casting their votes for Bush-Cheney in 2004.
A delay in mandatory country-of-origin food labeling is also a sore spot.
"When George Bush ran for president the first time, when he was discussing foreign policy, he said we would look out for America's interests first, which is a very good thing. But when it came to trade, I don't think that's the way it's being played out," said Terry Stevenson, who works for his family's feedlot west of Wheatland.
Only Utah, at 72 percent, provided more support for the GOP ticket than Wyoming. But Stevenson and other staunch Wyoming Republicans believe their national leaders are treading down the wrong path, sacrificing some commodities for the sake of broad trade agreements.
Residents can air their concerns today in Douglas when Mark E. Rey, USDA natural resources and environment undersecretary, holds a forum at the State Fair's McKibben Cafeteria from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
"There's some divisiveness within our membership," said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. "But I would certainly say there is a significant portion of the membership that has philosophical differences on trade issues from where the Bush administration appears to be headed."
The Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, was narrowly passed by Congress in July and signed by President Bush on Aug. 2. It creates a free-trade zone comprising the United States, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, plus the Dominican Republic.
Supporters said the agreement will increase jobs in the United States by opening new markets for American goods. Detractors said the opposite will occur, that jobs will be shipped where labor is cheap and that immigrants will find it easier to work in the United States.
Sugar worries
The flash point of the debate for many Wyoming residents -- including the state's congressional delegation, which was unanimously opposed -- is the potential effect on the sugar industry. Wyoming ranks ninth nationally in sugar beet production, according to the USDA, and sugar beets are the state's No. 2 cash crop behind hay.
The national sugar industry mounted a vigorous campaign against CAFTA, fearing the deal might unleash a flood of sugar on the domestic market and drive down prices.
Supporters, however, said new imports would comprise only 1 to 1.2 percent of domestic sugar consumption. And Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said the agreement has provisions to protect American sugar if it is threatened under CAFTA.
Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., said Tuesday he had never been lobbied so hard by the administration on one issue as he was on CAFTA. Still, he voted against it because of his concern that the potential effect on sugar was not satisfactorily addressed.
Terry Jones, who raises alfalfa, barley and sugar beets near Otto in the Big Horn Basin, said American farmers often suffer under trade agreements because taxes they pay aren't the same as for foreign producers.
"They should get a calculation on what it costs an American producer to produce crops and how much of that is going toward paying taxes, and they should have the same taxation on people who want to come into the United States and do business," he said.
Richard McKamey, a Worland sugar beet farmer, thinks CAFTA "by itself is a pretty small deal." But, he said, "I think the administration was surprised at the opposition, and we're hopeful that out of that we will see a change in this, the bent to do all these regional trade agreements on an all-inclusive basis."
Cattle concerns
In 2004, President Bush signed a law delaying implementation of country-of-origin food labeling for most commodities until Sept. 30, 2006. Meatpackers and food processors oppose the mandate.
Thomas and fellow Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, meanwhile, have been trying to move up the deadline.
Stevenson said without mandatory labeling, consumers won't know where much of their beef comes from. "It's just as much an issue to me as undocumented aliens coming into this country," he said.
Another source of angst is Canadian cattle. A federal appeals court paved the way for a resumption of imports last month when it overturned a judge's order blocking the USDA from reopening the border. In May 2003, imports were barred after an Alberta cow was found with mad cow disease.
Thomas tried to hold ground on the ban because several Asian countries continue to block American imports due to a case of mad cow found in the United States two years ago.
"It didn't seem to me it was fair to open the Canadian border until we got those other markets back open again," he said.
Stevenson said any new policies that allow increased food imports will cost America more of its independence.
"We need to work toward something that we would call food sovereignty," he said. "We don't want to be dependent on food from foreign countries like we are on foreign countries for our energy right now."
But asked if he would prefer John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House, Stevenson flatly replied, "Absolutely not."
Democrats likely would not take a different stance on trade, he said. Also, George Bush and the Republicans are mostly correct on other issues such as fiscal policy, he said.
"It's not like I'm a malcontent and going the other direction," Stevenson said. "I'm involved in it and trying to change my party to being completely right instead of just part way."
Jones agreed he would never trade Bush and Cheney for a Democratic White House.
"I'm so grateful for the good leadership," he said. "They're doing basically a good job."
By ROBERT W. BLACK
Star-Tribune capital bureau
CHEYENNE -- Wyoming may be deep in the heart of Bush country -- and one of the reddest of the red states -- but discontentment is brewing over the administration's handling of agricultural and trade issues.
White House support for a new trade agreement with Central America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's effort to overturn a ban on Canadian cattle imports have irked many ranchers and farmers who were among the 69 percent of Wyomingites casting their votes for Bush-Cheney in 2004.
A delay in mandatory country-of-origin food labeling is also a sore spot.
"When George Bush ran for president the first time, when he was discussing foreign policy, he said we would look out for America's interests first, which is a very good thing. But when it came to trade, I don't think that's the way it's being played out," said Terry Stevenson, who works for his family's feedlot west of Wheatland.
Only Utah, at 72 percent, provided more support for the GOP ticket than Wyoming. But Stevenson and other staunch Wyoming Republicans believe their national leaders are treading down the wrong path, sacrificing some commodities for the sake of broad trade agreements.
Residents can air their concerns today in Douglas when Mark E. Rey, USDA natural resources and environment undersecretary, holds a forum at the State Fair's McKibben Cafeteria from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
"There's some divisiveness within our membership," said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. "But I would certainly say there is a significant portion of the membership that has philosophical differences on trade issues from where the Bush administration appears to be headed."
The Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, was narrowly passed by Congress in July and signed by President Bush on Aug. 2. It creates a free-trade zone comprising the United States, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, plus the Dominican Republic.
Supporters said the agreement will increase jobs in the United States by opening new markets for American goods. Detractors said the opposite will occur, that jobs will be shipped where labor is cheap and that immigrants will find it easier to work in the United States.
Sugar worries
The flash point of the debate for many Wyoming residents -- including the state's congressional delegation, which was unanimously opposed -- is the potential effect on the sugar industry. Wyoming ranks ninth nationally in sugar beet production, according to the USDA, and sugar beets are the state's No. 2 cash crop behind hay.
The national sugar industry mounted a vigorous campaign against CAFTA, fearing the deal might unleash a flood of sugar on the domestic market and drive down prices.
Supporters, however, said new imports would comprise only 1 to 1.2 percent of domestic sugar consumption. And Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said the agreement has provisions to protect American sugar if it is threatened under CAFTA.
Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., said Tuesday he had never been lobbied so hard by the administration on one issue as he was on CAFTA. Still, he voted against it because of his concern that the potential effect on sugar was not satisfactorily addressed.
Terry Jones, who raises alfalfa, barley and sugar beets near Otto in the Big Horn Basin, said American farmers often suffer under trade agreements because taxes they pay aren't the same as for foreign producers.
"They should get a calculation on what it costs an American producer to produce crops and how much of that is going toward paying taxes, and they should have the same taxation on people who want to come into the United States and do business," he said.
Richard McKamey, a Worland sugar beet farmer, thinks CAFTA "by itself is a pretty small deal." But, he said, "I think the administration was surprised at the opposition, and we're hopeful that out of that we will see a change in this, the bent to do all these regional trade agreements on an all-inclusive basis."
Cattle concerns
In 2004, President Bush signed a law delaying implementation of country-of-origin food labeling for most commodities until Sept. 30, 2006. Meatpackers and food processors oppose the mandate.
Thomas and fellow Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, meanwhile, have been trying to move up the deadline.
Stevenson said without mandatory labeling, consumers won't know where much of their beef comes from. "It's just as much an issue to me as undocumented aliens coming into this country," he said.
Another source of angst is Canadian cattle. A federal appeals court paved the way for a resumption of imports last month when it overturned a judge's order blocking the USDA from reopening the border. In May 2003, imports were barred after an Alberta cow was found with mad cow disease.
Thomas tried to hold ground on the ban because several Asian countries continue to block American imports due to a case of mad cow found in the United States two years ago.
"It didn't seem to me it was fair to open the Canadian border until we got those other markets back open again," he said.
Stevenson said any new policies that allow increased food imports will cost America more of its independence.
"We need to work toward something that we would call food sovereignty," he said. "We don't want to be dependent on food from foreign countries like we are on foreign countries for our energy right now."
But asked if he would prefer John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House, Stevenson flatly replied, "Absolutely not."
Democrats likely would not take a different stance on trade, he said. Also, George Bush and the Republicans are mostly correct on other issues such as fiscal policy, he said.
"It's not like I'm a malcontent and going the other direction," Stevenson said. "I'm involved in it and trying to change my party to being completely right instead of just part way."
Jones agreed he would never trade Bush and Cheney for a Democratic White House.
"I'm so grateful for the good leadership," he said. "They're doing basically a good job."
