Greene targets concerns of ag, energy, small businessWritten by Saige Albert
Running for Wyoming’s lone seat in the House of Representatives hasn’t been an easy feat, but Ryan Greene, Democrat candidate for House, is confident that he is the best choice to represent Wyomingites in Washington, D.C.
As he looks to representing the state, Greene says his first priority would be to bring Wyoming tax dollars back to the state.
“We send tons of our taxes to D.C., and I think we need to fight to bring those back in the form of grants,” Greene says. “Farmers and ranchers could all benefit from things like rural healthcare, improved transportation, export assistance and infrastructure improvements.”
He also sees that decreasing the overreach of the federal government is also a top priority.
“I am also a small businessman,” Greene says. “I’ve helped my family expand one welding truck into a 250-employee energy service company.”
He started as a welder and worked his way up the chain to operations director.
“Every single day, I have to put up with red tape and regulations,” he comments. “Personally, I see the impact of these things. I will work to get the federal government off our backs.”
Finally, Greene promises that he will work to “keep public lands in public hands.”
“This priority is so important to me,” he says. “Under our system, Wyoming became the number one coal state in the country. Under this system, Wyoming became one of the top oil and gas producers in this country, and under this system, we can hunt and fish wherever we’d like.”
Greene adds, “The reality is, the state sells land. When that happens, hunters lose access and ranchers pay more for grazing. I say we keep public lands in public hands, and I’ll fight for that every day in Congress.”
As he looks at examples from around the country, he sees the loss of public lands as an assault on freedoms, and he promises to fight to preserve freedom for Wyomingites.
Work in Washington
If elected to the House of Representatives, Greene looks to leverage his background on committees.
“I’ve worked for 18 years in Wyoming’s coalmines, the oil patch and the fertilizer plant,” he says. “I would certainly try to leverage my background in these industries to get on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”
He also will prioritize the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Agriculture Committee as committees he hopes to serve on.
“I work with these industries every day, and my expertise is in those industries,” Greene says. “I would hope to serve those industries on committees.”
With just under a month left to campaign, Greene also adds that he is realistic in his goals for his first several years in Washington, D.C.
“I have to be honest with what I can accomplish as a freshman congressman,” he says. “Big promises are not going to serve Wyoming well. It’s important not to promise the voters the world from a first-term congressman.”
Greene adds that the extravagant promises of congressmen and women across the country are likely the reason that Congress has only a nine percent approval rating.
“At the end of the day, it’s just not realistic to make big promises,” Greene comments. “I will work to leverage my backgrounds to work in my committees. I will do what I can to work with both parties to make sure Wyoming issues are represented on both sides of the aisle.”
Greene also adds that it is important to work together in Washington, D.C.
“I am the only candidate who will work with whoever America elects as their next president,” he comments. “I will make sure that Wyoming’s issues are represented.”
As he looks at Wyoming, Greene comments that our state is one of only four in the nation that does not have a growing economy.
“We have to take a look at what we can do for Wyoming,” he says.
Greene also notes that this election is critical.
“There are so many things at stake and so many critical issues we should be talking about,” he comments. “We need to ask these questions and discuss the solutions. We need to work together.”
“I look at taking practical, proactive steps to accomplishing our goals,” Greene notes. “We need to have Wyoming in our conversation to start working to advance Wyoming issues.”
Whether he is elected or not, Greene comments that he understands the agriculture industry and the energy industry, and he believes that he can make an impact for Wyomingites.
“I have put my sweat and muscle into our ag sector,” he says. “I want to ask Wyoming’s ag communities, will they support someone who has supported you? Win or lose, I will keep working with the ag industry. The other candidates can’t say the same.”
Cheney looks toward support Wyo way of life in HouseWritten by Saige Albert
As Election Day draws closer, Liz Cheney continues campaigning across the state, telling Wyomingites her story and the reasons she will make the best candidate for Wyoming in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“If I’m elected, one of my top priorities will be to make sure we are able to undo as much of the damage from the Obama years as possible,” Cheney says. “We need to start by rolling back the size, scope and authority of the federal government, particularly as it comes to issues like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), among others.”
As a first priority, if elected, Cheney says she will focus on being placed in the right committees.
“My priority would be the Natural Resources Committee,” she explains. “I think that committee is hugely important for Wyoming because of the public lands issues.”
Cheney also says she would like to play a role in the national security arena, including making sure the military has the appropriate resources and the country is well defended.
As a top issue, federal overreach is widespread throughout the current administration in Washington, D.C.
“When we look at things like BLM Planning 2.0, for example, making sure that people understand how dangerous it is and how it is a threat to our sovereignty is important,” Cheney comments. “I think it’s important that Wyoming’s representative is really leading on these issues.”
As she looks back 40 years, Cheney says that the federal government used to operate such that the general population believed they were operating in good faith and that the government listened to the people.
“I think that sense is gone today,” she says. “We really need to re-establish why local control is so important.”
She adds, “We also have to make sure that we explain to people the extent to which these agencies are operating outside of the law.”
To start the reforms process, Cheney sees that repeal of a number of pieces of legislation as an important place to start.
“We have to think of creative ways to tie the hands of these agencies,” she explains.
Cheney believes that one of the best ways to solve some of the problems in today’s government is by looking at repealing pieces of legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act and estate tax legislation.
“Fundamental regulatory reform and really limiting the ability of agencies to change the meaning of the law by the rules that they pass are very important,” she continues. “We need clear, quantitative requirements.”
Moving to local control
“We have got to have more authority invested in the state,” Cheney says, adding that government that is closer to the people it governs is better.
The concept also applies to federal lands, though Cheney does not believe that clear-cut transfer of public lands to state hands is the best solution.
“I think there are a lot of options when we look at federal lands,” she says. “I think it’s important to guarantee access and make sure the state has the resources it needs for an increased role that we ought to play.”
She continues that management of federal lands is not a cut-and-dry issue with a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
“We’ve got to do whatever is best for the land and the people of Wyoming,” Cheney comments. “Certainly more authority and more autonomy is important, but this issue is too big and too important to answer with a 'yes' or 'no' response.”
“The people who are dependent on the land ought to be in charge of it,” she adds.
When the federal government begins to get involved in people’s lives, the result is often unfavorable, Cheney adds, noting that healthcare is an prime example.
“That is what happens when the government starts to reach its tentacles in,” Cheney comments. “We shouldn’t have to keep learning this lesson over and over again.”
Running for Congress
“It has been a real honor to be the Republican nominee,” Cheney comments. “I think it’s a sacred obligation and duty to be Wyoming’s representative in Congress.”
She adds, “If I’m honored to be elected, I’ll fight every day on behalf of these issues that impact Wyoming. These are issues I really care about and will fight for so that we’re able to build the kind of coalitions we need to defend our people.”
Federal landscape: Barrasso, Lummis look at legislation, impactsWritten by Saige Albert
Laramie – With great support of the agriculture industry coming from Wyoming’s congressional delegation, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Congressman Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) visited the Wyoming Stock Growers Association Summer Cattle Industry Convention and Trade Show June 3-4 to update farmers and ranchers on the latest happenings from Washington, D.C.
The top of many political conversations lately has been the upcoming presidential election, and Barrasso said, “A woman in church asked me, how did it come to this?”
He continued that he is strongly against Hillary Clinton, commenting, “I think we can never afford, as a country, to be like the last four years. It would basically be like a third Obama term. I think it’s been a terrible eight years for the country under President Obama’s one-size-fits-all approach.”
With regulations skyrocketing in number and no-win situations across energy and healthcare fields, Barrasso said, “Is help on the way? The election will have a lot to do with it.”
“Everyone is worried about the impact of this administration and the rules and regulations we see,” he continued. “As WSGA’s Jim Magagna put it, we need more carefully chosen words in terms of regulations that would lead to more defensibe outcomes.”
With overwhelming regulations, Barrasso noted that a positive has been seen in the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency last week.
“Justice Kennedy said, ‘The Clean Water Act remains notoriously unclear. The law continues to raise troubling questions regarding the government’s power to case out on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the nation,’” Barrasso quoted. “That’s good coming from a Justice who’s not with us all the time. The administration has gone so far overboard that the Supreme Court has ruled against them 8-0.”
However, with challenges abounding, Barrasso also noted that some progress is being made in Congress.
“We’re making progress on wildfire, the Equal Access to Justice Act and trying to get more transparency,” he said. “We’re making progress in a number of areas, but we’re not making enough.”
Barrasso added, “The outcome of this election has a lot to do with it.”
While congressional review was passed to overturn regulations, Barrasso noted that presidential vetoes are difficult to overcome.
“This election is more consequential than ever because it’s not just the presidency,” Barrasso said. “The Senate hangs in the balance, and so does the Supreme Court. When Justice Scalia died, it made an impact. He was magnificent, and in his view, the constitution is a legal document, not a living document. It was built for rigidity, not for flexibility. We lost a great friend in Justice Scalia.”
The next president will appoint a new Supreme Court justice, which will dramatically impact the direction of the U.S.
Lummis noted that in addition to the election, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has taken up much of her time lately.
“I’ve concentrated on TPP this spring in ways that are more detailed than I have in the past,” she said. “I’ve taken a deep dive into TPP, including spending more time in Southeast Asia, and it has had an impact on me. I’ve become a very strong advocate of TPP.”
Lummis noted that, while she voted against Trade Promotion Authority last summer, she has devoted her time to learning about the details of TPP. The opinion she has formed as a result of much education is that TPP is an agreement that will benefit the livestock sector and agriculture.
“Beef came out just about better than any industry,” she said. “The industries that are not happy with TPP include the prescription drug industry, because it reduces the protection on drugs before they can go generic to eight years. The automobile industry and the tobacco industry are not tickled pink, but agriculture has a lot to cheer about.”
She also noted that she will be working directly with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to promote TPP.
“This is one of the few things that we can agree on with this administration – and maybe the only thing we can agree on as this administration winds down,” Lummis said.
While Lummis noted she typically focuses her legislative efforts around agriculture, natural resources, energy, entitlement reform and spending reductions, recently, she has jumped into another arena.
“We have reached a level of executive overreach that is absolutely unprecedented in this country to the point that the constitution has been stood on its head,” she said. “One of those areas in when President Obama mandated that K through 12 education let young people pick the bathroom of their choice and the locker room of their choice if they take federal funds.”
Lummis is strongly against the effort and has since crafted and will be introducing a bill to allow parents to obtain a voucher to send their children to a different school if any federal mandate is imposed on the school that they are against.
“This is an extreme departure from what I usually legislate on, but I’ve had it up to here with these federal mandates,” she emphasized. “We can’t just let is happen. We’ve got to fight back.”
“As I came over to Laramie from Cheyenne this morning, it is a gorgeous day, and right next to the interstate fences, we saw Eisele’s cattle. It was just a scene out of heaven to see cattle on green grass on this beautiful day in this beautiful state,” Lummis said. “The people in the ag industry and the people who preceded them are the ones who have sustained Wyoming’s culture, value of hard work, stewardship of the land and the cattle, sheep, wildlife and more.”
She continued, “Wyoming ag people protect it, nurture it and sustain it, so thanks to all of you who provide that for the people of this state.”
Lummis commented, “The people in agriculture make Wyoming life possible.”
Concerns arise that GMO labeling bill will impact biotechnology, market pricesWritten by Emilee Gibb
After several years deliberating and refining, United States President Barack Obama officially signed into law the Genetic Modified Organism (GMO) Labeling Bill on July 29, which prevents states from requiring on-package text to identify GMO products.
The monumental passing of the bill will have significant impacts on biotechnology, food processers and agricultural producers alike.
“We cannot understate the importance of this agreement and the importance of this bill. I’ve been covering farm policy full-time for 17 years now, and this labeling issue has been a huge issue not only in the United States, but internationally ever since then,” said AgriPulse Senior Editor Philip Brasher.
Brasher was joined by AgriPulse Associate Editor Spencer Chase to give recent update regarding the bill in a recent video interview.
According to Brasher, the two most important elements of the bill for the agricultural industry are labeling language requirements and the definition of GMO products that would require labeling.
Genetically modified organisms, for the purpose of the bill, are identified as those products that are produced through transgenic technology.
“The definition of genetic engineering for the purposes of this disclosure is pretty narrow. It’s limited to the sort of transgenic products that we now have on the market where we take a gene from a bacteria and put it in a plant,” said Brasher.
New techniques, such as gene editing and RNA interference are not covered by the definition and will not require mandatory labeling.
The bill will also not require the labeling of meat products that were fed genetically modified products prior to slaughter.
The mandatory disclosure element of the bill will not require on-package text but allows food companies to have the option to choose text, a digital quick response code or a symbol that will be chosen by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
“It was very important for the industry that there not be on-package labeling, any kind of on-package text requirement for it to say produced by genetic engineering,” said Brasher.
Creating a uniform system was an important issue in developing the bill. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation Director of Public and Governmental Affairs Brett Moline referenced the issues faced with organic labeling 15 years ago, noting that it was important to avoid the same inconsistencies with GMO labeling.
“Every state was doing their own thing. For example, somebody who went to Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming for farmers’ markets would have to have three different labels,” said Moline.
The GMO labeling bill preempts state laws that many were concerned about, said Chase.
Brasher continued, “States can pass their own laws, but they have to be identical to the federal standards.”
The next step for the GMO labeling bill will be to transition to rulemaking by USDA to determine how to implement the regulations.
“It moves on to the process of USDA rule making. That process is expected to take two years,” said Chase.
Brasher noted that the rulemaking process has already begun. However, challenges in court can be expected.
“They have a working group that is already preparing for the implementation of that rule,” said Brasher. “That rule is likely to be challenged in court, but it’s very important in terms of setting the specifics of how this disclosure standard will work.”
Mandatory disclosure may lead to consumer bias against genetic modification, resulting in companies moving away from the technology, explained Brasher.
“This agreement really lays out the future for ag biotech because there’s been so much concern for so long among farmers, food companies and biotech companies that if GMO labeling were required, that it would stigmatize the technology and companies would move away from it,” said Brasher.
Moline warned producers that this bias, along with the cost of labeling products may impact the profit of food companies and then impact prices paid to producers.
“It all trickles down. If the costs up the chain goes up, it comes back to the producer being paid less for their product,” said Moline.
Moline noted that the changes in the market may be more profitable for small segments of the agricultural industry, including organic producers.
“Some segments of the industry might come up, like the organic, but it’s a small segment of the population of production,” continued Moline.
Future impacts on the agricultural industry remain uncertain, said Moline.
“We’ll have to see how this next presidential election comes out, as that could greatly impact it. What other countries and nations do, that could impact it some,” he said. “Right now, it’s kind of a wait-and-see attitude.”
He noted that the immediate impact of the labeling being put into place will most likely be negative for the agricultural industry as stigmatism encourages food companies to move away from transgenic technology.
“The overall ramifications to production agriculture are probably going to be negative until we get more research money to improve our crop genetics the old fashioned way, so to speak,” continued Moline.
According to Brasher, food companies will continue to move toward using new techniques such as RNA interference that are not covered by the bill.
“We’re going to see even more companies moving toward that,” concluded Brasher.
Elections raise questions about SenateWritten by Saige Albert
Washington, D.C. – As ranchers from around the West gathered in Washington, D.C. for the week of April 11, Kevin McLaughlin, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), noted that the 2016 election cycle will see some challenges, but he predicts the Senate will stay in Republican control this year.
“At the NRSC, we only care about Senate races and electing Republican senators to the Senate,” he told attendees at the Public Lands Council Spring Legislative Conference. “It’s a tough cycle for us, and we have a tough map.”
Starting with the presidential election, McLaughlin said, “Donald Trump is throwing a curve ball to everyone. Anyone who tells us they know how this is going to turn out is lying to our faces.”
McLaughlin continued that, at the NRSC, his job is to help to build a crew, give them the information they need to be successful and send them out to states to build support.
“We feel like our role for our campaigns and our candidates is to support them in any way we can to make sure they’re ready for rough seas,” he said. “We had no idea that Tropical Storm Trump was forming off the coast.”
He added, “We’re going to find out how good our crews are.”
Despite any challenges that have popped up this year, McLaughlin also noted that the NRSC has been planning for a long time, and they are prepared to tackle the challenge.
“Almost a year ago, we had all of our departments sit down and write memos for every single candidate,” he said.
The memos described what each candidate would mean in every state across the U.S.
“We have some good guidance on where we think we can go on our votes,” he said.
McLaughlin also noted that the election will still be a challenge.
Outside the presidential election, McLaughlin said, “The Senate races are going to be a challenge for us in an already challenging cycle.”
“We have 34 races,” he continued. “There are 24 Republican incumbents and 10 Democrats. Those Democrat seats are in such Republican hotbeds as Connecticut, Oregon and California. It’s fun times.”
The important piece with these elections, he said, deals with training. NRSC brings in political directors, campaign managers and others to talk about how things have changed and how the election is different than it was in 2010, when these incumbents were last elected. McLaughlin commented that the election will be remarkably different from their last race.
“In 2010, the iPad was a year away from being sold. We could buy Uber on GoDaddy for $2.99. The guy who runs Snapchat was in high school,” McLaughlin explained. “Everything has changed. This is a different world that these guys are running in.”
While candidates are very intelligent and their campaign managers are skilled, McLaughlin also said, “It’s a tough cycle from 30,000 feet, but it’s good for us that campaigns are not run at 30,000 feet.”
Rather than focusing on the big picture, McLaughlin said that Senate races are won at the local level in local elections.
“The way we can throw an incumbent out is to tell people – theirs voters and their constituents – what they’ve done wrong,” he said. “We’ve had some success at that in the past, and we had some success in the last cycle doing that.”
“I feel like our folks are very, very well positioned in their states to do well, even if Tropical Storm Trump is a dead hit on us,” McLaughlin continued.
Looking at data
While McLaughlin said that everyone in D.C. is willing to provide an opinion as fact for the outcome of political races, he added that NRSC has worked diligently to analyze data in reaching conclusions.
“One of the things we came into as the NRSC last cycle is that we said we were getting sick and tired of getting kicked around in primaries, and we weren’t going to lose any more primaries,” he said. “Last cycle, we went seven for seven in primaries. We don’t like to lose.”
Presidential primary states are important, as well, and McLaughlin noted that it is important to look at those states for information, particularly when it comes to incumbent voters.
“Trump has no incumbent voters,” McLaughlin emphasized. “There is a Cruz incumbent voter, and we feel much better after looking at the results of the primaries. This is all after $0.5 billion in negative advertising.”
As a leading indicator, McLaughlin noted that he looks at favorability versus un-favorability, rather than straw polling.
“Do people like the candidates? At the end of the day, this is a more or less a student council. If people do not like their representative, they will vote against them,” he said. “If they like them, there’s a much better chance they will vote for them. Our folks are in great shape.”
Working through 2016
With a long campaign season ahead, McLaughlin also noted that the NRSC is positive that Republicans will hold the majority in the Senate.
“We feel very good we’ll hold this majority, come hell or high water,” he commented. “We are going to do what we have to because we have seen the stakes. There are decades of policy decisions and other things that will be affected.”