|
Blanche Lincoln 
Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:40:31 AM PST
|
|
I'm assuming that by now you've gotten over your joy that Harry "Better Than Sharon Angle" Reid eeked out a victory in his election (god, what a low bar), and - like me - you're now bracing yourself for a Republican led House and hoping they don't make Kent Conrad the Chair of the Senate Ag Committee.
Well. Get ready to get excited for one more fight for something that's not quite what you believe in but, well, it's better than nothing. The Senate version of the school lunch bill.
OK, so it ain't perfect. But it does 2 of the 3 major things it needs to do. First, it sets stronger nutrition standards for school lunch. Second, it makes sure more hungry kids will get fed. And, third, well... it doesn't really give as much money as the lunch program needs. But it does give a whopping $.06 per meal and a total of $4.5 billion in new money over 10 years. And THAT is a LOT MORE THAN YOU CAN EXPECT FROM THE REPUBLICANS.
At first we were asking Congress for the perfect bill. Then we were asking them to at least pass the House version instead of the Senate one. And now, with little time left in this Congress, we're down to just asking them to pass the Senate. For this, you need to focus your action on the House (bug the Senate about the DREAM Act and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell).
Details here. Take action by writing, faxing, or calling your Representative.
|
|
Discuss
:: (15
Comments)
|
|
Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 13:34:30 PM PDT
|
|
It's amazing what happens when the First Lady writes a Washington Post op ed calling for the passage of a bill. The pathetically slow, broken Senate gets moving and actually passes it! At least, that's what happened in this case.
Blanche Lincoln's child nutrition bill just passed the Senate by unanimous consent. My god. The Republicans don't mind apologizing to BP or taking all kinds of other wildly unpopular positions, but even they won't vote against feeding hungry children.
The bill is flawed, primarily in its lack of funding for healthy school lunches, but it brings the National School Lunch Program far closer to perfection in just about every other way. The bill is not yet ready for Obama's desk. First, the full House needs to vote on Rep. George Miller's child nutrition bill, a bill that is slightly more generous than Lincoln's but still underfunded, and then the two chambers must reconcile their versions of the bill. We still don't know how the House bill will be paid for, as it must be before reaching the House floor. Thus, the questions remaining are: How much money will child nutrition receive, and where will it come from? The other question, of course, is whether the bill will pass before the deadline of September 30, but if the Senate has passed its version, I am hopeful.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 20:03:19 PM PDT
|
|
It's 51.8% to 48.2% with 82.2% of precincts reporting and the Arkansas Senate primary race has been called for Blanche Lincoln. The bad news is that Halter lost and now Blanche will lose to a Republican in November. The good news is that after she loses to a Republican in November, she won't be Chair of the Senate Ag Committee anymore.
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 22:27:01 PM PDT
|
I knew something up when the soda lobby was happy about the child nutrition bill. And I was right. Blanche Lincoln put out a press release called "Lincoln, Harkin, Woolsey Announce National School Nutrition Standards" and in the first paragraph it says this:
U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., today announced a major agreement between the food and beverage industry and public health and education groups on national school nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools.
Why is the junk food lobby at the table to make rules about nutrition? Would you have a criminal at the table to make laws about crime? The American Beverage Association, Coca Cola, Mars, Nestle, and PepsiCo were all included in negotiations for the new school lunch nutrition standards in Lincoln's child nutrition bill. Under the bill, the USDA will set one set of nutrition standards for all food sold in schools during the school day (including vending machines). This is a change from current laws, which forbid the USDA from setting rules over most food sold in schools outside of the federally-reimbursable school lunch (i.e. the meal served to kids who receive free lunch).
So here's the question: What did public health groups give up by negotiating with the junk food lobby? What do public health experts think the school nutrition standards should be, and how far apart is that from the actual language of the bill?
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:50:32 PM PDT
|
|
The American Beverage Association (i.e. the soda lobby) seems awfully happy about the school lunch bill in the Senate. Should we be worried? They began last year by spending a mere $200,000 in lobbying in the first quarter. They increased to $1,330,000 in the second quarter, $7,550,000 in the third quarter, and $11,010,000 in the fourth quarter. (Additionally, they began in the first quarter with their own lobbyists plus the help of two outside lobbying firms, added two new lobbying firms in the second quarter, and another one in the third quarter.) They've also testified at Congressional hearings on school lunch.
I realize that much of their spending is related to defeating a soda tax, but some of it is for school lunch and child nutrition programs too. They are scared shitless that Congress will ban vending machines from schools (a great idea!). Thus, they are promoting their own, voluntary, "self-regulation:"
The beverage industry is committed to the health and wellness of its consumers, including America's schoolchildren. Just this month, we announced the remarkable results of the final progress report on the implementation of our School Beverage Guidelines. The report shows that, when it comes to beverages, it's a whole new day in America's schools. In fact, we've removed full-calorie soft drinks and slashed beverage calories available in schools by 88 percent!
They don't mind cutting the calories because the same companies that sell soda (and diet soda) also sell water, juice, and sports drinks. So long as schools have vending machines with ANYTHING in them, these companies make money. Removing the calories doesn't harm the bottom line, but removing the vending machines does.
What I want to know is: what's in the Senate bill that the ABA likes so much? I've emailed the Center for Science in the Public Interest to see if they know anything. Also, I've included more on the ABA's lobbying below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 149 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 13:18:04 PM PDT
|
|
The Child Nutrition Reauthorization is one step closer to passage as of today. Today, Blanche Lincoln's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 passed the Senate Ag Committee unanimously. There are two bits of good news along with a lot of bad. (I recognize that the bill does a lot to make sure hungry kids eat - which is great - but while eating bad food is better than starvation, it's certainly not the solution we need.)
First, the bill went forward with $40 million for Farm to School. And second, Sherrod Brown is helping school lunch go organic:
An amendment by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was accepted by voice vote with no opposition to authorize an organic food pilot program that would provide competitively-awarded grants to school authorities to create pilot efforts to buy more organic foods for the school meal programs. The measure would still need to be funded by Agricultural Appropriations for the program to get off the ground.
The bill still only provides $4.5 billion in new money over 10 years (less than half of what Obama called for). Here's how they came up with the money:
The child nutrition reauthorization bill as reported out of Committee today also includes three funding cuts to offset the additional $4.5 billion being invested in school meals and nutrition programs. In addition to cuts to SNAP Ed, as the food stamp education program is now known, and the bonus commodity program, the bill cuts $2.8 billion in farm bill mandatory spending budget authority for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) over the next ten years.
It seems that this would only give about $.06 extra to each kid's school lunch, raising the reimbursement rate from $2.68 to $2.74. The School Nutrition Association is asking for an extra $.35, which I believe is what is needed to help schools pay for the current (often crappy) school lunches they now serve. In other words, anything over $.35 goes to improve school lunch quality, and anything less means no improvement at all. We need an extra $1 per lunch to make school lunches really healthy. From everything I've seen about school lunch, I believe that it all REALLY does come down to money. So there are some good bits in the bill, but it's just not acceptable unless we get over $.35 added to the reimbursement rate.
The next step for this bill is the Senate floor. After it passes the full Senate, it will go to the House.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 13:08:35 PM PDT
|
|
I wouldn't expect any bill from Blanche Lincoln to be good. And this one isn't. Obama called for $10 billion over 10 years in new money for child nutrition. Lincoln gave it less than half that ($4.5 billion over 10 years). That's bad. It's especially bad because most of the problems with school lunch CANNOT BE SOLVED WITHOUT SPENDING MORE MONEY. It's really that simple.
Part of the problem is that Congress passed a "PAYGO" rule (Pay as you go) requiring that any time they increase spending in one area, they find a way to pay for it by either taking money away from another area or by raising taxes. And obviously nobody wants to raise taxes. When Obama called for $10 billion over 10 years for child nutrition, he did not also provide Congress with $10 billion in cuts elsewhere in the budget. So it was left to Congress to figure out how to pay for it. And Lincoln - Senator of Factory Farms and Wal-Mart - decided to cut conservation spending. I'm positive there's any number of wasteful weapons programs out there that we can cut, and I would also like to see corporations pay their taxes (as many do not). Those to funding sources alone, if tapped, could probably pay for gourmet, all-organic meals for our kids.
The bill text and more details on the bill are available here. I had these links yesterday when I posted saying I didn't have the bill text. That's because the bill does not open when I download it. The other files do open though, so check those out.
UPDATE: I forgot to add that there will be a hearing on this on Wednesday, March 24. You can watch live via webcast from the Senate Ag Committee website.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 00:53:43 AM PDT
|
There's a BIG LIST of new food-related bills in Congress (listed below), but the one generating the most buzz is Blanche Lincoln's proposed child nutrition bill.
- S. 3123: Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010, introduced by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) with 13 cosponsors.
- S. 3124, to reduce the paperwork burden on child care sponsors and providers, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) with 1 cosponsor.
- S. 3126, a bill to promote wellness policies by Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) with no cosponsors.
- S. 3127 a bill to require continual updating of foods provided under WIC by Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) with no cosponsors.
- S. 3128, a bill to make all foster children automatically eligible for free breakfast and lunch by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) with no cosponsors.
- S. 3129, a bill to change WIC so that once qualified, participants are in the program for a year before they must be re-certified by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand with no cosponsors.
- H.R. 4734 and S. 3040, a bill to improve summer meal programs by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Sen. Lugar (R-IN) with 1 cosponsor in the House and 4 in the Senate.
- H.R. 4710: Farm to School Improvements Act of 2010 by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) with 17 cosponsors.
- H.R.4638: The Healthy Start Act, a bill to provide $.05 in federal commodities for school breakfasts by Rep. Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD) with 10 cosponsors.
- H.R.4148: The Hunger Free Schools Act, a bill to provide direct certification for free breakfast and lunch by Rep. David Loebsack (D-IA) with 21 cosponsors.
- H.R. 3705: Expand School Meals Act, a bill to expand the number of children eligible for free school meals by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) with 47 cosponsors. (It appears that this bill makes meals free for any children who are currently eligible for reduced cost meals.)
- H.R. 4402: The Nutritious Meals for Young Children Act and S.2749, a bill to improve access to food for young children in child care by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand with 41 cosponsors in the House and 5 in the Senate.
What will probably happen is that most of these bills will die, and components of them will be folded into whichever bill ultimately becomes law. Lincoln's bill, which I don't think she's actually introduced yet (and the text of the bill is most certainly not available from the Library of Congress yet), has a darn good chance of ultimately becoming law. More on that below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 618 words in story)
|
|
Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 20:37:26 PM PST
|
|
For months, we've had somebody to oppose in the Arkansas 2010 Senate race. Now we have somebody to support. Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter is running against Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic Senate Primary.
This means a lot to progressive Democrats as a whole because Lincoln's often the would-be 59th or 60th vote to break a filibuster, making her one of the single biggest reasons why health care reform has not passed yet. In fact, the House has passed 290 bills that the Senate has not passed so far this session, and Lincoln is one of the single biggest reasons why nothing gets done in the Senate.
But this election means something significant for food and agriculture too. As the chair of the Senate Ag Committee, Lincoln will be in charge of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization (i.e. school lunch) this year. That's not great. But if she's re-elected, she'll get to write the 2012 Farm Bill. And that will be REALLY bad.
Lincoln's beholden to cotton, rice, factory farms (particularly poultry), and Wal-Mart. If she loses in 2010, she'd likely be succeeded by Debbie Stabenow of Michigan as the new chair of the Senate Ag Committee. We'll get a significantly better Farm Bill from Stabenow than we would from Lincoln.
Fortunately, Lincoln's chances of winning are slim:
Recent polls have shown Lincoln trailing a little-known Republican field led by Rep. John Boozman and her being potentially vulnerable to a challenge from within the Democratic Party.
So what can we do to help Halter?
1. Spread the word (especially to people in Arkansas)
2. Volunteer for his campaign (phonebanking or canvassing). If you don't live in Arkansas, you might be able to phonebank for him from home.
3. Donate to his campaign, even if it's only $5. The sooner you do this, the better. I've added Halter to our Act Blue page so you can give to him through there if you'd like.
|
|
Discuss
:: (14
Comments)
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:44:32 AM PST
|
|
Apologies for interrupting this food blog with a post about campaigns and elections, but Blanche Lincoln's days are numbered as a U.S. senator from Arkansas. She trails Republican challengers by double-digits in recent polls by Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen. In fact, Lincoln trails her leading Republican challenger by more than 20 points in PPP's poll.
Assuming Lincoln loses, either to a Democratic primary challenger or to a Republican in November, the Senate Agriculture Committee will be needing a new chair in January 2011. Currently, Democrats are expected to retain a majority in the Senate, which would put Debbie Stabenow of Michigan in line to chair the Agriculture Committee. Republicans have a slim chance at winning enough seats to take over the Senate this November. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia would be the likely new chair, since is the ranking Republican on the committee now, but it's possible that the GOP caucus could shuffle things around.
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:11:09 PM PST
|
|
Q: What does Walmart have to do with improving school lunch and fighting child hunger?
A: I don't know either.
When Blanche Lincoln took over as chair of the Senate Ag Committee, one friend (who knows what he's talking about) assured me that life was pretty much the same at the Ag Committee and that Lincoln was going to do an okay job on the Child Nutrition Reauthorization. After all, Harkin can always take his chairmanship back after the 2010 election -- if Lincoln even keeps her seat! So what does Sen. Lincoln do when she's given the chance to hold a hearing on major child nutrition legislation? Here's the hearing line-up:
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry
Full Committee Hearing Notice
To: All Committee Members
Title: Reauthorization of U.S. Child Nutrition Programs: Opportunities to Fight Hunger and Improve Child Health
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Place: 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Witness List
Panel 1
The Honorable Tom Vilsack,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
Panel 2
Dr. Margaret Bogle, Executive Director, Delta Obesity Prevention Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Little Rock, AR
Mr. Rich Huddleston, Executive Director, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, Little Rock, AR
Ms. Rhonda Sanders, Executive Director, Arkansas Hunger Alliance, Little Rock, AR
Ms. Jennifer Smith, Director, Compliance, Walmart, Bentonville, AR
As you can see, everyone's from Arkansas. And the last person to testify is from Walmart. WTF?
|
|
Discuss
:: (21
Comments)
|
|
Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 14:41:10 PM PDT
|
|
The latest Rasmussen poll from Arkansas shows Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln trailing four potential Republican challengers. Rasmussen polls tend to skew a bit towards Republican candidates, so take this with a grain of salt.
On the other hand, this poll was in the field before yesterday's Senate Finance Committee hearing on the health care bill, during which Lincoln was one of three Democrats who refused to back both public health insurance option amendments. That probably won't go over well in Arkansas, where a strong majority of voters support "creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans."
Lincoln's re-election campaign will be generously financed by corporate interests; she has already pulled in a lot of money from healthcare industry. Big agribusiness will be there for her as well, and probably Wal-Mart and the Chamber of Commerce too, since Lincoln now opposes the Employee Free Choice Act (after voting for that pro-labor bill in 2007, when she knew President Bush would never sign it).
Corporate money could get Lincoln re-elected, but if the economy continues to be weak and the Democratic base is uninspired to lift a finger to help her, she could have a very tough road. MoveOn is already running ads against Lincoln.
I don't normally post here about campaigns and elections, but I thought the La Vida Locavore community would want to know that there's a very real chance the Senate Agriculture Committee will be choosing a new chair (Debbie Stabenow?) in early 2011.
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 15:19:13 PM PDT
|
|
An Arkansan who supports sustainable food made a great point to me today: Blanche Lincoln might be awful, but she's a Democrat. If enough Republicans can take Senate seats, then we'll get Saxby Chambliss as Senate Ag Chair instead of Lincoln or Stabenow. So, is it important to support Blanche Lincoln just because she's a Democrat? To answer that, we need to know who's running in 2010, and who's vulnerable. I asked Howie Klein of the blog Down With Tyranny to help me make a list, which you'll find below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 458 words in story)
|
|
Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 01:44:10 AM PDT
|
|
The Big Ag radio show AgriTalk interviewed new Senate Ag Committee chair Sen. Blanche Lincoln this past week. I've transcribed the interview (minus a lot of "um, you knows") below and if you get lost in the Senator's long-winded rambling statements, check out my translations of what she's trying to say.
|
|
There's More...
:: (12
Comments, 1487 words in story)
|
|
Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 23:13:10 PM PDT
|
Here's a statement from our friend Blanche Lincoln:
I will continue to fight for the hardworking farm families and rural communities who provide the safest, most abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber in the world.
This was part of a statement she released upon assuming the chair position in the Senate Ag Committee. I want to call it out because this is a phrase repeated over and over again by Big Ag shills. They constantly emphasize that we have the safest, most abundant food supply in the world. Sen. Lincoln comes from a cotton state so she remembered to include fiber as well as food.
Is our food really the safest? I'd doubt that. Safe as in what? As in not killing you immediately upon ingestion? We've got quite a food safety problem in this country. It would be pretty sad if all of the other countries were even worse than us. But how about long term safety? As in keeping you healthy and not making you sick. How about safety as in the production of the food is not harmful to your health via environmental pollution? I don't think Sen. Lincoln meant that.
As far as the claim that our food is the most abundant and affordable, that might be true. And so what? We still have hungry people in this country, even with all of that food, and we suffer on an epidemic scale of illnesses from people eating too much cheap food. None of this is the farmers' fault - the farmers I know all work their butts off and receive far too little in compensation for their efforts in my opinion - but once the farmers grow all of that food, the end result ain't so great.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
