MISSOURI FARM BUREAU 2008 POLICIES
Bringing Agriculture Together

Missouri Farm Bureau
2008 Policies

FARM BUREAU PHILOSOPHY

Farm Bureau is an independent, non-governmental, voluntary organization of farmers united to analyze their problems and to formulate action to solve these problems. Its efforts are directed, not at improved commodity prices alone, but also toward the general welfare of all aspects of farm life and through this to the general welfare of the entire nation. To this end, Farm Bureau strives for educational improvement, economic opportunity, and social advancement. Farm Bureau takes the stand that property rights and personal freedom as guaranteed by the United States Constitution are essential to the general welfare and these freedoms should be defended against all attack.

As Farm Bureau members we believe in our constitutional form of government, in freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, and in the right of each individual to worship according to his own belief. We believe that cultural advancement, ethical and religious principles flourish when men are free, responsible individuals. We further believe that economic progress is best achieved in a free market system.

We believe as Farm Bureau members we should reaffirm our home and family values and that family life and parental authority should be asserted.

We believe in the right of every person to choose his or her occupation, to be rewarded according to his or her contribution to society, but that individual freedoms and opportunity must not be sacrificed in quest for "guaranteed security".

Successful functioning of a democracy is possible only when all citizens take an active part in governmental affairs. We in Farm Bureau believe we should impress upon all citizens the importance of their decisions on public vote and the need of accepting responsibilities in public affairs. We pledge our best efforts to the important job of citizenship training.

We believe in the rights of individual states.

We believe the laws should be administered as close to the people involved as possible.

We believe that the greatest threats to our American democratic system are a powerful federal bureaucracy capable of developing national policy by administrative decision and the apathy of the people who allow this to happen.

Farm Bureau is organized to do what its members want done. It provides a means by which farmers can work together toward the goals upon which they agree.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

Agricultural Liens

We favor the current Missouri law which gives lending institutions the option of releasing a portion of their security interest and giving priority to credit issued by farm suppliers.

Farm Credit System

Preservation of the Farm Credit System is in the long-term best interest of U.S. agriculture. We favor decentralization to the maximum extent feasible. We support promotion of "Farmer Mac."

The Farm Credit System has an important and constructive role to play in making financing available for rural housing, agri-businesses and rural infrastructure development.

We oppose any restructuring of the Farm Credit System which replaces farmer-elected members of System boards with commercial bankers or expands commercial bank access to FCS funding.

We believe it is in the best interest of Missouri agricultural producers for the Farm Credit System to remain intact. We support legislation to remove the statutory exit provision from the Farm Credit Act.

Farm Foreclosures

Efforts to protect all farmers with moratorium legislation would make it more difficult and more costly for farmers to receive credit in the future. We believe farm loan decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Lenders should be encouraged to sell a homestead separate from other farm properties when doing so is consistent with sound business principles.

Farm Service Agency (FSA)

We favor allowing the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to dispose of property at fair market value acquired through foreclosures to recover costs on borrowers who have not and cannot pay the interest and principal on their loans.

We favor moving FSA loans away from direct government loans to guaranteed loans (where private lenders make the loans backed by a government guarantee). We encourage commercial bankers and FSA to work together to ensure paperwork and reporting requirements for FSA guaranteed loans do not impede participation.

We favor subsidizing FSA interest rates by the federal government for disaster loans.

We support repeal of the program which allows certain inventoried FSA land to be sold subject to conservation easements. If these easements are allowed, we favor government agencies (e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) be required to make payments in lieu of taxes on easement acreages.

We oppose the transfer of inventoried property to federal or state natural resource agencies without it first being offered for sale to the public.

We believe the FSA beginning farmer program should give priority to younger farmers and should use a debt to equity factor for determining eligibility rather than the current requirement that applicants can own no more than 25% of the average size farm in their county.

We favor FSA disaster or guaranteed loans being made available to incorporated levee districts.

We believe that eligibility for FSA loan guarantee, interest assistance and direct loan programs should not be limited to an arbitrary number of years.

We support amending Section 310B(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to allow for business and industry guaranteed loans to be made for farmer-owned projects that add value to or process agricultural products regardless of the physical location of the plant.

We feel that farmers and landowners should be able to continue receiving their farm payments by check and should not be forced to take payments as a credit to their checking accounts electronically.

FSA must constantly review the formula used to set Posted County Prices (PCPs) to ensure that it accurately reflects market conditions at the county level and that the differential between the cash price and PCP does not unfairly penalize producers or county elevators.

"Land Link"

We support the concept of establishing a service to help match beginning farmers with retiring farmers who do not have heirs to continue the family farm business.

Loan Guarantee Program

We support a program to provide loan guarantees for loans to value-added processing facilities through the sale of taxable bonds. The main source of revenues to repay or guarantee these bonds should come from general revenue appropriations.

State-Sponsored Loans

We favor the continuation of the linked deposit program BIG MISSOURI, which reduces interest rates to farmers and small businesses through local banks and Farm Credit System banks. We support the State Treasurer's plan to set aside a portion of state investment income to be used to create capital for value-added and other agricultural enterprises through the BIG MISSOURI program.

In addition, we believe eligibility for the BIG MISSOURI program should be maintained for 2-3 years even though a borrower's debt to asset ratio may improve after they initially qualify for the program.

We favor requiring the same criteria for small business as currently exist for the agricultural loan program.

We support Missouri Link funds being made available for on-farm grain storage, drying, handling systems and structures.

We oppose the state going beyond the linked deposit program to create a state agricultural bank and to issue voter-approved bonds to provide additional low interest loan money for farmers.

We support the State Treasurer's efforts to invest more state funds with Missouri financial institutions rather than out-of-state.

Young Farmer Funding

We favor legislation which would better assist lending institutions in making loans to young farmers through improved flexibility of loans, such as longer terms, lower down payments, lower interest rates and redefining the definition of a young farmer.

We support USDA expanding their land contract pilot loan program for beginning farmers and ranchers.

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

General

We believe Extension continues to play an important role in Missouri agriculture and for people across the state of Missouri. Agricultural programs, 4-H and Home Economics activities, continue to be the strength of Extension for rural Missouri.

We believe the county councils and the county program directors should have increased authority and responsibilities for the local Extension programs.

We support the consideration of work experience and background in lieu of a master's degree requirement for hiring a University Extension 4-H Youth Specialist. We support allowing the Youth Specialist to work toward a master's degree by offering credit hours from the University at a reduced rate.

We support promotional activities that increase public awareness of county Extension programs and services and we urge county Farm Bureaus to take an active role in county Extension program development.

We favor increased rural representation on county councils.

We also recommend more funds be made available for the Extension program on a line item basis.

We believe every county which finances the necessary office and travel expenses should be assigned at least one agricultural extension agent.

We favor increased funding for county extension offices to allow specialists more time to deal with customers. However, the counties are currently meeting their share of office budget appropriations. Therefore, we would ask the University of Missouri to consider increasing their portion of budget appropriations.

We believe that Cooperative Extension, as well as the director of Cooperative Extension, should reside in the University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

Commercial Agriculture Program

We believe the Commercial Agriculture Program should be a strong program for Missouri farmers and ranchers. We support increased cooperation and coordination between the Commercial Agriculture Program and other University of Missouri programs within the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Agricultural Cooperatives

Agricultural cooperatives are a vital part of our private competitive enterprise system. The strength of cooperatives lies in their ability to serve their members. We oppose any attempt to repeal or weaken the Capper-Volstead Act.

We support the formation of a perpetual funding incentive source to assist farmer owned cooperatives in processing Missouri agriculture products into value added consumer goods.

Missouri Farm Bureau should provide leadership in the development of marketing cooperatives and the creation of networking opportunities for smaller producers.

We support participation in production and/or marketing activities such as producer alliances or new generation cooperatives.

We support legislation to modernize federal law to ensure that farmer cooperatives, including new generation cooperatives, continue to have access to credit.

Agricultural Drugs and Chemicals

We support labeling requirements for feed additives to accurately identify actual drug strength in products.

We oppose label restrictions on essential agricultural pesticides for the protection of endangered species when such restrictions will jeopardize agricultural production. Restricting pesticide use to protect endangered species will only be workable when the scope of the habitat has been narrowly and clearly defined and when economically affordable alternative chemicals or methods of control are approved and available for use.

Any record-keeping requirements for farm chemicals should meet the following criteria:

1. Mandatory record-keeping should be limited to restricted-use products only and not apply to general-use products.
2. Records should be kept on the farm for a period of two years.
3. Records may be inspected by the appropriate state pesticide agency only after showing just cause.
4. Records should be kept confidential and treated as confidential business information.

We urge EPA to expedite the approval of fungicides to prevent and treat soybean rust.

We vigorously support the release of effective chemicals banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in emergency cases such as serious grasshopper and cutworm infestations.

The cost of clearing a pesticide or a drug is extremely high and in some instances may exceed the potential return from sales of that drug. Some pesticides and drugs which fall in this category would provide unusually great benefits to society.

We recommend the United States Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency cooperate with private industry in actively searching out such products and providing clearance, when possible, from data used to approve these products in other countries.

For the sake of accuracy and convenience, we do not believe crop protection chemical manufacturers should be required to convert to the metric system in the U.S. With our land areas being described in U.S. measures, we believe it will be difficult to even convert pesticide rates to metric.

We are concerned that the Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides, which have been implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are far more detailed and complicated than necessary for the protection of the typical family farm operation. We recommend that EPA continue to work with the farm community to modify this program in order to develop guidelines that are more practical and workable. In addition, we recommend that EPA focus their efforts on training and informing farmers rather than seeking to penalize farmers through enforcement actions.

We believe that Worker Protection Safety Standards should be applied to all pesticide applicators, both public and private. There should be no exemptions for golf courses, state transportation departments, etc.

Agricultural Marketing

We believe access to open and competitive markets is essential to all producers of farm commodities.

We believe that Farm Bureau, commodity organizations, academic institutions and public officials should become more active in providing agronomic, economic and business assistance for agricultural producers.

Agri-Missouri Program

We support the Missouri Department of Agriculture's Agri-Missouri Program which is designed to help identify and promote Missouri grown and processed products.

We favor increased funding for the Agri-Missouri Program.

Animal Agriculture

When considering the growing number of public policy issues that animal agriculture is facing, we believe it should remain the objective of Missouri Farm Bureau to (1) be the prominent agricultural organization representing the interests and general concerns of the independent farmer, (2) work for the improved competitiveness of independent producers, and (3) aggressively work against unfair and unreasonable governmental regulations that impair the economic viability of the independent farmer.

We further believe that those independent family operators who choose to contract with, or form an alliance with a corporation, cooperative, or any other entity should be recognized as part of an ever changing yet continuing trend in animal agriculture.

We believe the environmental concerns raised by the concentration of large numbers of animals in confinement operations warrants the distinction, for the purpose of regulating animal source nutrient management systems, that the Clean Water Commission has made between very large operations and smaller sized operations. We will vigorously oppose any effort to apply the more stringent regulations to farming operations that have a smaller concentration of animal units.

We believe that Missouri currently has adequate laws to regulate animal agriculture.

We believe that llamas and ratites should be treated and classified as domesticated livestock.

Animal Identification

In light of past events and the elevated threat of agri-terrorism, we favor a voluntary (not a USDA or state mandatory) national animal identification system that will provide support for animal disease control and eradication and enable 48-hour traceback of the movements of any diseased or exposed animal. We do have concerns related to the following issues:

1. Producer confidentiality is of utmost concern. Confidentiality should be protected to the greatest extent possible.
2. The cost of the identification program should be distributed on a fair and equitable basis without undue financial burden on the producers.
3. Producers should have liability protection from the actions of others after the animal has been sold by the producer. We oppose a mandatory brand law, but support increased enforcement of current branding laws with penalties for violations.

Animal Protection

The United States livestock and poultry industries are being threatened by animal rights activists. These individuals are claiming that livestock and poultry confinement operations subject animals to inhumane conditions. We disagree with this contention and recognize that animals were put on the earth for man's use by Almighty God, and believe that animals are, in fact, benefiting from the protection and care they receive from modern-day agricultural practices. We oppose any efforts to develop laws or regulations which would mandate impractical methods of production resulting in higher costs of production for farmers and ultimately higher food costs for the consumer. We believe laws prohibiting animal abuse should not be construed to restrict modern livestock production practices.

We believe animal protection authorities should be prohibited from confiscating livestock herds with animals in good condition.

We believe animal protection authorities should be required to obtain the approval of the state veterinarian before confiscating hooved animals. In such cases, we believe animal protection authorities should be required to give advance notification to the animal owners as well as the farm or facility manager.

Research utilizing animals is necessary to ensure more effective and humane veterinary medical practices. We oppose legislation and regulations which would prohibit or unduly restrict the use of animals in research.

We believe that animal researchers should do a better job of verifying the ownership of animals used for research.

We support the creation, establishment, and strict enforcement of federal and state laws and regulations that increase the penalties for individuals who break into, vandalize, remove animals from, trespass on or demonstrate the intent to disrupt farming, ranching or agricultural research facilities.

We support an aggressive, comprehensive education program presenting the facts of animal and poultry production and well-being to the general public and to school children.

We support practical, on-farm research to help document minimal stress placed on farm animals under current production systems.

Biomass Fuel Pellets

We support the establishment of uniform standards for biomass fuel pellets.

Biotechnology

Plant-made pharmaceuticals are being developed to increase the availability and affordability of compounds for medicinal purposes. In addition to the humanitarian benefits, plant-made pharmaceuticals have the potential to open new markets for U.S. farmers and increase the value of their annual production.

We support the production of plant-made pharmaceuticals in Missouri in accordance with the scientific protocols set in place by the U.S. government. We believe biotechnology should be regulated only at the state and federal levels.

Carbon Sequestration and Credits

We are concerned about agriculture becoming involved in the trading or selling of carbon sequestration credits. Given that voluntary programs are currently in place, we believe Missouri Farm Bureau should be involved in all discussions relating to the trading of carbon sequestration credits. The provision for selling carbon credits was introduced as a part of the U.N. Kyoto Climate Change Treaty. We believe the costs to agriculture by the implementation of the Kyoto Treaty through sharply increased energy costs would be much greater than the small amount of compensation from the sale of carbon credits. Therefore, we oppose a federally imposed carbon credit trading system until such time as the agricultural impacts can be quantified.

Confidentiality of Farm Information

We oppose the release of individual farmer-specific records or census data. We also oppose the release of confidential farm records by employees of the Missouri Department of Conservation's Private Lands Initiative operating in county USDA and/or Soil and Water Conservation District offices.

Country of Origin Labeling

We support a voluntary country of origin labeling (COOL) program for agricultural products that is market driven and adds value to the products.

We believe a mandatory labeling program, as outlined in the 2002 farm bill, would impose undue compliance costs, liability, and recordkeeping and verification requirements on agricultural producers.

We support the concept of establishing a recognizable "national logo" that designates USA produced products.

Farmers' Markets

We support legislation to allow the establishment of regional farmers' markets guided by a locally appointed Regional Farmers' Market Commission.

Feed Law

We oppose exempting any segment of the poultry or livestock industry from the Missouri feed inspection fee which is collected on feed ingredients.

If the Missouri Department of Agriculture replaces feed registrations with facility licenses, small livestock feed dealers should not be adversely impacted.

Fertilizer Regulation

We are opposed to any further regulation of the sale of ammonium nitrate or anhydrous ammonia for agricultural use.

We support designating the release or escape of anhydrous ammonia into the atmosphere by any person not the owner or in lawful control of an approved container of anhydrous ammonia as illegal.

We support classifying such illegal release as a Class B felony, unless such release causes death or serious physical injury to any person, in which case it would be a Class A felony.

Food Quality and Safety

The American food supply is the safest and most abundant in the world. Agricultural chemicals and other technological advances play a major role in maintaining both the quality and quantity of our food supply. Farmers are trained and well-equipped to use farm chemicals and fertilizers effectively and safely and in amounts that are no more than what is necessary to combat pests and disease.

We believe the protection of the U.S. food supply would be enhanced by requiring that imported food products be subjected to the same high safety standards and testing as food produced in the U.S.

Balanced and science-based implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) is of the utmost concern to Missouri farmers and ranchers. We believe that failure to implement the FQPA in a balanced way could have serious negative effects on pest management and food and fiber production in the United States, with subsequent adverse impacts on the health and well-being of the American people. Specifically, we support the following principles: 1) sound science--implementation must be based on sound science and reliable information; 2) transparency-the public must be informed of the criteria used to assess risk and the process by which decisions are reached; 3) balance-as EPA considers canceling older pesticide products as a result of the tolerance reassessment and re-registration process, it must give high priority to the review and approval of new products; and 4) workability-the law must be administered in a practical and realistic way. If EPA fails to follow Congressional intent during the implementation process, we support the use of options such as litigation and legislation.

We support continued federal funding of research through the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP) on the value of agricultural chemicals to Missouri agriculture.

We support legislative and regulatory decisions concerning food irradiation that are based on valid research.

We support the voluntary labeling of food and agricultural products that contain Genetically Enhanced Organisms (GEOs).

We oppose the use of public funds by specialty, niche or value-added producers for derogatory, destructive or disparaging campaigns against conventionally raised farm products.

Futures Trading

We favor continued monitoring of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

We also favor having at least one farmer or agricultural representative on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

To help protect the interests of producers, we believe the delivery of the actual commodity should be as efficient as possible and a reflection of the cash market. Steers and heifers should be deliverable at the market and delivery weights should reflect the cash market.

We believe regulatory action by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the individual commodity exchanges should be taken in a way that will have the least disruptive impact on the producers of the commodities involved.

We oppose any increase of fees charged by commodity exchanges for subscribers to marketing services.

The emergence of index funds as a new class of market participant and their use of "swaps" has created serious challenges for traditional hedgers, producers, and other market participants in gauging market fundamentals. Given the fact that index funds have no involvement in the physical commodity or marketing channel, we feel it is inappropriate for them to be granted a hedge exemption. Furthermore, we feel it inappropriate to classify them as a "commercial" account in the Commitment of Traders reports. We strongly support that the reporting activity of index funds be separated from the trading activity of traditional "commercial" accounts, historically a category reserved for grain companies and processors hedging price and inventory risk, in future Commitment of Traders reports.

Grain Grading

We favor revision of the grading and pricing system for all grains to reflect premiums for quality and to reward producers for dryer grain in the same manner the producer is penalized for moisture content. If premiums for moisture and test weight cannot be accomplished, we would favor a system of averaging loads of grain to determine prices.

We believe grain sold to farmers from a commercial source should be sold on a graded basis.

We oppose the use of vacuum drawn grain samples used for grading purposes, but we do not oppose mechanically drawn, vacuum transferred systems.

We believe sellers of agricultural products should have grades and discounts available before those products are unloaded.

Revised grain standards should indicate clearly and give assurance that we will provide clean grains for our customers at home and abroad. We recommend that blending regulations be better enforced so that foreign material is not added to exported grain. Blending requirements as to moisture should be better enforced so that we can export an improved quality of grain.

We support a grain grading system that separates broken kernels and foreign matter into separate grade factors.

We believe the Missouri Department of Agriculture should develop a process that allows producers and processors to certify that raw or processed products are free of genetically-enhanced organisms according to tolerances set by export customers.

Grain Indemnity Fund

We believe that before a state grain indemnity fund is considered, state bonding requirements for grain dealers and warehouses should be thoroughly reviewed and increased as needed.

Grain Warehouse

While we support Missouri's Grain Warehouse law, we caution against overly stringent requirements which might force smaller grain elevators or grain dealers out of business leaving farmers with fewer markets for their grain.

We support allowing grain dealers and warehousemen to submit compiled financial statements prepared by a Certified Public Accountant instead of the review or audit level statements required by the Missouri Grain Warehouse and Grain Dealer Laws.

We believe CCC measurement rules should be made more lenient so farmers will be able to fill their bins to peak capacity. With the limited storage available, this could add as much as ten percent to storage capacity.

We oppose any federal pre-emption of state grain dealer laws by the United States Grain Warehouse Act. We feel it is in the best interests of Missouri grain producers that all grain dealers and warehouses doing business in Missouri be licensed by the state of Missouri and under the regulatory scrutiny of the Missouri Grain Dealer Law.

Hay Testing

We support the NIR (near-infrared reflectance) spectrometer hay testing program in Missouri. We encourage the University of Missouri to continue funding of this program.

Industrial Hemp

We do not support the production of industrial hemp.

Kennel Regulations

We oppose any unnecessary and excessive laws and regulations affecting kennel owners.

We support authorizing only trained USDA or Missouri Department of Agriculture officials to inspect state and federally licensed kennels. We oppose authorizing the Humane Society, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or similar organizations to enforce kennel laws and regulations.

We recommend canines in kennels licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture and/or USDA be considered as an agricultural commodity with protection of customary agricultural exemptions and policies.

Licensing and Titling of Farm Motorized Equipment

We oppose the licensing and/or titling of motorized farm equipment (for example, tractors and combines). We further oppose any effort to license operators of farm equipment. We believe the farm machinery identification program is an acceptable means of identifying stolen property and urge continued support for this program from local sheriffs' departments and the Missouri Highway Patrol.

Livestock Marketing

In order to be competitive, Missouri livestock producers must have readily available market outlets. We believe Farm Bureau should take the lead in closely monitoring all mergers, ownership changes or other trends in the livestock packing industry that would signal a lessening of competitive market availability or a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act or any other state or federal statute.

Producers should be able to forward contract with packers for the sale of livestock, but we are concerned that packers, through the use of forward contracting, are able to adversely affect the cash market for livestock. We should closely monitor the ability of packers to manipulate the market by forward contracting with producers.

We believe the ownership of all livestock selling through private sale barns should be announced at ringside before the animals are sold.

We believe all livestock being sold by the pound at private sale barns should be weighed prior to the sale.

We support strict enforcement of the federal Packers and Stockyards Act.

We support breeder hens and all forms of poultry being added to the protection under the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act (GIPSA). In addition, we favor GIPSA making rule changes to coincide with Missouri Farm Bureau policy concerning production contracts, such as banning mandatory arbitration and prohibiting retaliation.

Farm Bureau should intensify their efforts to monitor and oppose further market/packer consolidation that would be detrimental to livestock producers.

We oppose any restrictions on livestock production and/or marketing in Missouri that would limit or restrict production and/or marketing options or opportunities for livestock producers.

We support the Missouri Department of Agriculture's Quality Systems Assessment (QSA) program that will allow producers to sell source and age verified cattle with third party verification.

We support the Missouri Branded Beef Initiative and the efforts of the Missouri Department of Agriculture's beef branding working group. The charge to the working group is to develop and implement a strategy that adds value to Missouri's high quality cattle herd by creating consumer awareness via a "Missouri brandname" for beef.

Livestock Price Reporting

Any packer who processes more than 5% of the national daily slaughter should be required to report cash and contract prices and terms of sale to the federal market news service.

Livestock Regulations

County health ordinances are being adopted or considered for adoption by a number of Missouri counties. Although the health ordinances are being promoted under the guise of protection of public health, the ordinances are designed for the primary purpose of restricting animal agriculture.

Missouri Farm Bureau should work to eliminate the use of county health ordinances for regulating animal agriculture. They not only add one more layer of regulations on livestock producers, but will eventually drive the livestock industry out of the counties so affected and very possibly the whole state.

Meat Quality & Inspection

We recommend that the permissible "water added" content of meat and poultry products be reduced to protect the quality of meat without adding undue cost to the product.

We support and favor promoting a Meat Quality Assurance Program.

We strongly support enforcement of meat inspection standards. We recommend that the meat inspection program remain under USDA and not be placed with the Food and Drug Administration.

We recommend that meat and poultry inspected under state programs, which are equal to federal inspection and approved by USDA, be permitted to move in interstate commerce.

We support increasing the number of state inspectors to ensure safety of Missouri meat products and to create more opportunities for direct marketing to consumers.

We support meat handling labels that educate the consumer about meat quality and safety issues.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We believe that consolidation, and subsequent concentration, within the U.S. agricultural sector is having adverse economic impacts on U.S. family farmers. To address this trend, we believe Congress should review existing statutes, develop legislation where necessary and strengthen enforcement activities. This includes creating an agricultural antitrust advisor at the U.S. Department of Justice and examining the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Hart/Scott/Rodino Act, Packers and Stockyards Act and other applicable laws.

In the event the Congress fails to act, and consolidation continues, we believe a moratorium on future mergers and acquisitions or other measures should be pursued.

Milk Inspection Program

We support adequate general revenue funding to the state milk inspection program so as not to increase funding from raising the milk inspection fees on processors and producers.

We favor the continued legal sale of raw milk.

Missouri Market News Program

Access to unbiased market information is critical to farmers and ranchers when making marketing decisions. We support funding for the Missouri Department of Agriculture's "Missouri Market News Program" that allows for the continuation of market news reports at current and/or expanded level(s) of service.

Missouri Seed Law

In order to protect and encourage the development of new seed varieties, we recommend changing the Missouri Seed Law to prohibit the sale by commercial seedsmen of "variety not stated" or "brown bagged" wheat or soybean seed.

We oppose the incorporation of a sterile gene designed specifically to prevent the public and private propagation of seed.

We believe that extreme care should be taken to ensure that adding genetically engineered traits to seed does not accidentally make most of that crop more susceptible to some disease.

We believe extreme care should be taken to ensure that adding genetically engineered traits to seed does not create unacceptable risk to humans, animals or the environment.

We favor farmers being allowed to save seed for their own use. However, we recognize some seed is subject to federal patent protection, and we do not support state law to allow farmers to save patented seed, which would put those farmers who save seed in violation of federal law. We favor changing federal seed patent law to allow farmers to save patented seed.

Farmers should be allowed to save and replant patented seed by paying a minimal technology fee on saved seed. Companies that sell patented seed should keep the price of U.S. seed competitive with the price of seed sold in other countries. While we recognize that the costs of research and development must be recouped, we believe American farmers are being put at a disadvantage through the high cost of biotech fees, i.e. royalties. We believe South American competition with Roundup Ready products through pirating and unenforceable seed laws in those countries are contributing factors that need to be addressed by private companies and public institutions.

Production Contracts

We believe contract production agriculture is a way to assist individual producers in competing in the agriculture industry.

We support the rights of producers to enter into contracts.

We support:

1. Ensuring that confidentiality clauses allow producers to share information with business advisors and attorneys and allow a period for contract review prior to signing;
2. Improving the readability of contracts;
3. Requiring the disclosure of material risks;
4. Allowing contract producers/growers the ability to review and discuss contract terms with the contractor/integrator in making their business agreements without apprehension of retaliation from the contractor/integrator; and
5. Banning mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts. We believe arbitration should be left as a choice; not mandatory, for contract producers.

Promotion and Check-Offs

We support commodity check-off and self-imposed funding programs in cooperation with the goals of the various agricultural commodity organizations. We believe that all legislated commodity check-offs should be passed by producer referendum and should comply with all provisions of each check-off's respective act and order.

Specifically, commodity legislative check-offs should continue to be used for promotion, education and research activities, and not for legislative or lobbying purposes.

Regulatory Reform

We believe farmers and ranchers are being negatively impacted by the growing regulatory burden at the state and national level. We believe members of the Missouri General Assembly and the U.S. Congress should do more to reduce this regulatory burden. Furthermore, we support the creation of a task force or other means that measure the cumulative impact of regulations affecting production agriculture and believe this measurement should be completed prior to the implementation of any regulation impacting agriculture.

Right-to-Farm

Missouri Farm Bureau will make it a priority to protect and enhance the ability of farmers and ranchers to continue agricultural production in the State of Missouri. Missouri Farm Bureau will also make it a priority to ensure the regulation of agriculture is limited to the state and federal government.

We support responsible actions designed to permit and protect the privilege and the rights of farmers to produce without undue or unreasonable restrictions, regulations or harassment from the public or private sectors. We support actions to ensure that farmers be protected from undue liability and nuisance suits when carrying out normal production practices.

We support efforts to give agricultural producers increased protections against false and defamatory statements that tend to damage or endanger a producer's livelihood, product or property.

We favor real estate brokers and agents include on the sellers disclosure statement form this statement: "Proximity to farming: This notice is to inform you that the real property you are considering for purchase may lie in close proximity to a farm. The operation of a farm involves usual and customary agricultural practices which are protected."

Sale of Mortgaged Agricultural Products

We support the current system of prior notification whereby lienholders are required to notify potential buyers of their secured interest in order to protect such interest. We support efforts by private industry to provide a more unified listing of farm liens in order to make prior notification of potential buyers more practical and cost effective.

User Fees

We believe that user fees should only be used to fund expenses for the program under which they were collected.

We oppose reallocating revenue from user fees or increasing user fees to create new programs or fund existing programs not directly related to the program for which the fee was established.

Value-Added Agriculture

We believe state government has an important role to play in developing value-added marketing and processing of agricultural products in Missouri.

We support the establishment of an agricultural innovation center in Missouri which could serve as a central distribution point for information as well as state and federal funds for individuals interested in pursuing value-added agricultural opportunities. We believe the agricultural community would be best served if the agricultural innovation center was established at the state's land grant institution.

We commend and support private and public efforts to develop and promote alternative uses for agricultural products, such as corn-based starch products, ethanol blended fuels, soy diesel fuel, soy ink and beef tallow for hay preservation and energy use.

We support the development of methods to recycle plant nutrients via processing manure into fertilizer and encourage the use of tax credits and other incentives to promote this industry.

We strongly encourage the use of bio-based products at all levels of government and we recommend that a bio-based products preferential purchase program be adopted by the state of Missouri.

We support measures that will encourage agricultural cooperatives to enhance the profitability of its farmer members by becoming more involved in value-added processing.

We further support: 1) providing additional financial incentives to assist new generation cooperatives with start-up costs, including plant construction and processing equipment costs; and 2) retaining state funds appropriated for eligible value-added agricultural operations that are not allocated in a fiscal year for use by such operations in subsequent years.

We support the state tax credit program for farmers who invest in new generation cooperatives and processing facilities.

We support increasing the funding for the Missouri Agriculture and Small Business Development Authority from $6 million to $12 million for investor tax credits.

We commend the Missouri Farm Bureau Board of Directors for purchasing the tax credits from farmers at 100 percent of face value.

We support providing state tax credits for expansion of livestock operations.

Weed Control

We believe the current state Weed Control Law should be amended to provide for the detection, isolation and eradication of infestations of new or potentially dangerous noxious weeds on both private and public land.

We support the formation of county weed boards as deemed necessary by county courts.

We believe that public agencies should undertake efforts to prevent the infestation of new or potentially dangerous noxious weeds on public land.

We believe that Kudzu should be declared a dangerous and noxious weed and be eradicated from public and private lands.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

We believe an aggressive and meaningful public research program is essential to the future of agriculture. We support agriculture research at all state universities and colleges.

In light of the high cost and the availability of only patented seeds (e.g. corn, soybeans, etc.) from private companies, we believe that our land grant universities must renew their efforts in developing new high yield, disease resistant public varieties.

We also support increased state and federal appropriations, including additional research to develop new markets for agriculture products.

We also support private funding for agricultural research programs to develop new products and urge close cooperation between private sources of funding and our state colleges and universities.

We urge the adoption of a more inclusive, transparent decision-making process for the establishment of USDA's agricultural research priorities and allocation of funding.

We support more research on naturally occurring environmentally safe pesticides that provide effective control.

We urge increased federal funding for development of disease-resistant varieties, as well as new crop protection treatments, to help combat Soybean Rust.

We support federal funding for the National Soybean Research Center on the University of Missouri campus.

We urge the University of Missouri's College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources to represent the interests of agriculture in the development of public policy by initiating timely research and analysis for the purpose of participating in the legislative and regulatory decision-making process.

We support the establishment of a regional agricultural research center in north Missouri comprised of the Hundley-Whaley Farm, Graves Farm and the Thompson Farm.

We also encourage the continued use of producer self-help check-off funds to help supplement research activities wherever possible.

We recommend more research for alternative crops and value-added products for smaller farm operations.

We recommend funds for more intensive study of soybean cyst nematode.

We support additional applied water quality research that recognizes the importance of involving local agricultural producers.

We favor the continued use of animals for agricultural and medical education and research.

We support the research for new biotechnology in agriculture that improves farm efficiency, profitability, and is proven a safe product or practice.

We encourage Missouri to lead in developing biotechnology and applied research in developing foods and fiber.

We support using a portion of Missouri's share of the national tobacco settlement for life science research in the state.

We favor a regulatory process which would assure that products developed through biotechnology are reviewed in a timely and scientific manner.

We support allowing counties to establish agricultural research districts with authority to levy up to 25 cents per acre to fund agricultural research projects as long as only agricultural producers in a county are allowed to petition for a referendum, vote in the referendum and serve on the local board that controls the funds.

We support the creation of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture.

ANIMAL HEALTH

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)

Reports of inconclusive BSE tests cause excessive market volatility. Therefore, we believe that USDA should not report BSE tests unless they have a confirmed case.

Brucellosis

We favor an accelerated national eradication program for brucellosis. We support a research program to develop a better vaccine for both cattle and calves.

We oppose reducing available funds from the state or national eradication programs.

We encourage producers to voluntarily vaccinate.

We encourage the Missouri Department of Agriculture to keep up an aggressive testing and surveillance program for brucellosis.

Diagnostic Laboratories

We recommend that continued emphasis be placed on expanding the technology of the area diagnostic laboratories. Area laboratories should be maintained as they are very beneficial to the state's livestock and poultry industries for disease detection and control.

We recommend developing laboratories in areas of the state where needed.

We recognize the importance of protecting our animal industry. Therefore, we support the efforts to increase diagnostic and animal disease research facilities and capability for the protection of our livestock and wildlife populations.

Interstate Movement

We favor enforcement of embargoes against importation of livestock from states which do not have effective disease control programs (brucellosis, pseudorabies and tuberculosis).

Medications

We support and encourage the education of users of animal pesticides and medications to ensure their safe use. However, we oppose requiring certification of the user of animal pesticides and medications (e.g., ear tags, wormers, implants, etc.), but suggest that producers strictly adhere to all labeled directions for use.

It is imperative that there be state oversight of the dispensing of veterinary prescription drugs by a non-veterinarian. In order to ensure the quality, safe handling, and accurate dispensing of these drugs, it is important for this authority to be granted to a state entity with the resources and expertise to meet these obligations. As the only state without this oversight, Missouri will become a dumping ground for unsafe, foreign-sourced drugs.

We believe that veterinarians should be able to sell over-the-counter drugs under the same rules and regulations as retail suppliers.

While we recognize the need to control veterinary prescription drugs, we believe the interpretation of present statutes and rulings by the Division of Professional Registration can cause real harm to those in the livestock industry. We would therefore recommend that all veterinary pharmaceutical inspections be transferred to the jurisdiction of the State Veterinarian along with the proper funding.

Pseudorabies

We support full federal funding for both laboratory services and field personnel for Missouri's pseudorabies program and support mandatory testing for pseudorabies.

State Veterinarian

We believe the Missouri State Veterinarian should assume the lead role in detecting and developing a feasible plan to combat maladies affecting livestock. This includes coordination with other state agencies as well as officials at the local, state and national levels.

Veterinarians

We believe admittance to veterinary school should be based on academic qualifications rather than referrals.

We favor continued funding of the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

We encourage students to enter large animal practice. We also support financial aid and incentives for students and new veterinarian graduates that commit to practice large animal medicine in underserved rural areas.

CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT

General

We believe the Conservation Department should place more emphasis on informing and working with adjoining landowners of land owned or under consideration to be purchased by the Conservation Department.

The public access to Conservation Department lands creates many potential problems for neighboring landowners. The Conservation Department should manage and adequately supervise their lands to address such concerns as hunting and trespassing on private land, increased traffic on local roads, safety of neighbors, littering, vandalism and other related activities.

We favor a cooperative land agreement with landowners to provide incentives for the development of game habitat on private land as an alternative to additional land purchases by the Conservation Department.

We support the Conservation Department in their program of using prairie grass to promote and support wildlife in Missouri.

We believe the Conservation Department should continue to make payments in lieu of taxes on their land. We support legislation to require that payments by MDC for property tax be adjusted periodically to reflect changes in property taxes paid by surrounding landowners.

We believe land owned by the Conservation Department should have reasonable access facilities and that the Department should help maintain roads leading to these facilities.

We believe the Conservation Department should mow their rights-of-way at least annually.

We strongly oppose any effort by animal rights groups to limit the rights of individuals to legally harvest and control wildlife.

We urge the Missouri Legislature to pass a law requiring the Missouri Conservation Department to pay the deductible on all comprehensive insured, Missouri licensed vehicles when they are involved in a collision with a deer, coyote, turkey or any other protected wildlife capable of damaging a vehicle in the state of Missouri.

We oppose any restrictions on landowners related to the Missouri Department of Conservation's (MDC) Exotic Plant Policy or the Clinton Administration's Invasive Species Executive Order. The list of exotic plants that will be eradicated from land managed by MDC includes tall fescue, Caucasian bluestem and other varieties which have contributed significantly to the economic viability of the cattle industry and the fescue seed industry of Missouri. Tall fescue has also provided tremendous soil conservation benefits to Missouri landowners.

We believe that the Missouri Department of Conservation should establish policies which promote soil conservation and economic viability on private lands.

We believe the Missouri Department of Conservation should make handfishing for catfish a legally regulated sport in the state of Missouri.

We believe landowners, farmers and individuals holding licenses to hunt turkeys in Missouri should be able to legally kill bobcats or coyotes that respond to a hunter's call.

We support state legislation to protect landowners from liability for damages associated with allowing others to hunt or fish on their property.

We believe landowners or tenants should have the authority to remove wolves, bears or mountain lions when these species cause damage on their property.

We believe the Missouri Department of Conservation should work more closely with other state agencies and Missouri's agricultural and transportation interests on issues associated with future management of the Missouri River.

We believe that recommendations by the Missouri Department of Conservation to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or other state or federal agencies should be based on sound science and the supporting scientific studies be available for review by the public.

We also believe recommendations by the Missouri Department of Conservation to regulatory agencies should be carefully considered within the Missouri Department of Conservation and should represent the official position of the Missouri Department of Conservation on various issues.

We oppose aerial videotaping conducted by MDC without the consent of private landowners whose property is observed on taped footage.

To preserve the integrity of the Ozark Trail as a multi-use trail, we believe the Conservation Department should allow equine and bicycles on the trail or on alternate routes.

We believe any active duty military member that is a resident of the State of Missouri shall be exempt from any license fees of the Missouri Department of Conservation to include deer, turkey, small game and fishing licenses.

Conservation Commission

Since most of the functions of the Conservation Department are concentrated in the rural areas of the state and because many of the Department's activities have a direct impact upon agriculture, we believe at least half of the Conservation Commission members should come from the rural areas and be directly involved with or at least knowledgeable about agriculture. We believe proposals to increase the number of commissioners provides the opportunity for greater accountability and increased representation for rural Missouri.

We support the creation of the Conservation Commission Advisory Board with one member from each of the department's eight conservation districts appointed by the governor to serve as volunteers without compensation.

Deer Overpopulation

Overpopulation of deer in many areas of the state has created serious problems including crop and property destruction. We recommend additional steps be taken to reduce deer numbers in Missouri. We support the development of a program in which landowners are voluntarily linked up with hunters to provide hunting opportunities under controlled circumstances to further reduce the size of the deer herd.

We support opening the deer season one week earlier for landowners hunting on their own property. This would allow safer hunting for farm families and could perhaps be helpful in making landowners more willing to allow hunting on their property after the opening of the regular deer season.

We favor the continuation of the practice of allowing deer hunting in certain state parks adjacent to agricultural areas whenever it is necessary to control the deer population.

We favor landowners being given the opportunity to give their deer tags away to other hunters during deer season to further reduce the population.

We believe agricultural producers eligible for no-cost resident landowner hunting permits should be allowed to use those permits on rented property under their control.

We support creating a statewide program funded by the Missouri Department of Conservation to pay for the processing of deer that are donated to a food pantry.

Hunting or Fishing Trespass

We recommend anyone found guilty of trespass in the first degree for the purpose of hunting or fishing should have their hunting and fishing license revoked for one to three years. We further recommend that their license be revoked for five years if a second trespass occurs within five years of the first offense.

Land Acquisition

We favor a constitutional amendment to require any additional land purchased by the Missouri Department of Conservation to be approved by the Missouri General Assembly.

Multiflora Rose, Thistle and Noxious Weeds

We urge counties to make funds available for multi-flora rose eradication in order to assist landowners in their effort to control multi-flora rose and to consider cost-share programs offered by MDC.

We believe the Conservation Department should eradicate the multi-flora rose, thistle and other noxious weeds on their property.

We favor federal and state governments and corporations having the same responsibilities as private landowners in controlling their multi-flora, thistle and other noxious weeds.

We believe sericea lespedeza should be classified as a noxious weed.

One-Eighth Cent Sales Tax

We believe the issue of retaining the one-eighth cent sales tax for Conservation should be placed before the voters every ten years. If the state legislature fails to pass a constitutional amendment to place renewal of the one-eighth cent sales tax on the ballot, then we believe an initiative petition should be pursued, and we also believe that earmarked tax issues should never be placed in the Missouri Constitution unless there are also provisions for automatic, periodic voter review. Also, we urge that less money from this tax be used for land acquisition. This land acquisition should never result in eroding the population base of school districts and rural communities, and more money should be used for other purposes such as small game cover and food plots on private land, weed control, timber stand improvement, warmseason grasses, fencing, etc.

We believe the state legislature should have more authority in appropriating and controlling the expenditures of the department's sales tax, hunting and fishing fees, and other funds. We support capping the revenue received by the Department of Conservation from the one-eighth cent sales tax.

Reintroduction of Wild Animals

We oppose the reintroduction of wild elk in Missouri.

We are opposed to the reintroduction or release of any wildlife species without public hearings and public comment periods.

We believe landowners should have the authority to destroy elk on their land anytime damages occur.

We are opposed to the introduction or release of mountain lions anywhere in the state of Missouri.

We oppose any wolf introduction or reintroduction program.

Streambank Stabilization

We urge MDC to provide more flexibility and financial assistance in streambank recovery programs to include the removal of gravel and obstructions from the stream channel and the use of removed material to repair stream bank erosion.

Wildlife Damage

We favor the Conservation Department establishing a program to help compensate farmers who have crop or livestock damage due to wildlife.

We favor an increase in the wild game harvest in areas where there is excess population or excessive property damage.

We believe the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) should do more to reduce wildlife damage to Missouri crops. This includes giving the Missouri Department of Conservation authority to enable landowners to increase the harvest of wildlife in cases of excessive property damage and we believe the Missouri Department of Conservation should attempt to cooperate with APHIS to enable Missouri to receive the maximum amount of federal help in this matter.

We believe feral hogs are an unacceptable risk to both humans and livestock and support federal and state eradication efforts.

We believe the Missouri Department of Conservation should take steps to reduce the coyote population in Missouri, including expanding the hunting season to be year-round and initiating a statewide bounty on coyotes.

We support the efforts of the Missouri Department of Conservation to renew special light goose hunting provisions to manage overpopulation and/or enact a program similar to that in the cities to take care of nuisance wildlife.

Wildlife Protection

We do not believe regulations should go beyond those necessary to encourage the proper disposition of game animals and game fish taken legally within the State of Missouri.

We support state legislation to make it an offense to remove wild plants from the property of others without the permission of the landowners.

CORPORATE AGRICULTURE

We believe that independent farming operations can produce agricultural commodities of as good a quality and as economically as large corporate farming operations.

We support regulations that would assure independent producers of market accessibility.

We oppose overly restrictive amendments to the Missouri corporate farming law which might limit the incorporation options available to independent farmers.

We oppose any tax incentives, tax breaks, state grants or other governmental assistance to corporate agricultural interests which are not available to all producers.

We oppose further exemptions of counties from the corporate agriculture law.

COUNTY AND STATE GOVERNMENT

Building Codes

We are philosophically opposed to the idea of requiring statewide building codes; however, if such a law is proposed, we believe farm buildings, including the farm residence, should be exempt and the bill should only establish minimum standards and must require approval by local voters prior to enactment.

Circuit Court Budget

We believe county commissions should have the same veto power over circuit court budget requests as they have over all other county offices, departments and commissions requesting county funds for salaries, equipment, supplies and services which are not specifically set by state law.

Constitutional Amendments

We believe the Missouri Constitution is too easily changed (having 100 amendments since its adoption in 1945 through 1998 as compared to the U.S. Constitution having only 27 amendments since 1790, including the first ten called The Bill of Rights). A Constitution should be a framework for action rather than a collection of special-interest taxes and programs. Therefore, we support an amendment to the Missouri Constitution requiring a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority to adopt amendments. We believe that only a simple majority vote should be necessary to completely remove existing constitutional amendments previously adopted by a simple majority.

County Government

We believe any county should be authorized to adopt a charter form of government (home rule) if approved by a majority vote.

We oppose any efforts to change existing elected offices in second, third, or fourth class counties to appointed positions.

We support the consolidation of county offices and/or facilities when desirable and practical.

We support giving the voters of a county the authority to approve the sale of property built from voter-approved county bond issues.

We encourage county governments to develop reasonable and adequate emergency preparedness programs including possible emergency drills.

We believe school tax increases and bond issues should be placed before local voters no more frequently than once a year.

We support decoupling and/or changes in the salary-setting procedures for elected county officials that will simplify, make more equitable, and less political the process for establishing salaries for county elected officials.

We believe county commissioners should be notified in advance of hearings, as well as proposed regulatory or operational changes which will affect the counties. In many cases, local elected officials and taxpayers find out about changes after the fact.

We support legislation that would give county governments equal standing with both the municipality and the local developer when tax increment financing districts are established, including the following: (1) permanent county government representation on a municipalities' T.I.F. (Tax Increment Financing) Commission; and (2) a prohibition on the General Assembly from diverting revenue from voter-approved county sales taxes.

County Government Audits

We believe counties and other local tax-supported political subdivisions that are supported primarily by taxes should be audited by competent outside auditors or auditing firms on a regular basis, and audit conclusions should be published.

We believe fire protection, sewer, ambulance and water districts that are supported by taxes should be audited the same as any other tax-supported district.

County Planning and Zoning

If planning and zoning becomes necessary, it should be administered at the county level and counties should be allowed to enact zoning authority for specific concerns such as solid waste disposal. Only the unincorporated areas and not the incorporated areas should be able to vote for the acceptance or rejection of planning and zoning.

We oppose legislation granting county commissioners the authority to name county planning commissions to develop a comprehensive master plan that could be adopted by the county commissioners without going to a vote of the people.

We favor legislation that would prohibit non-charter, first class counties from imposing regulations or requiring permits for agricultural land or buildings. Missouri statutes contain such a limitation on second and third class counties.

We favor the regulation of agriculture being limited to state jurisdiction and do not believe local jurisdiction, such as county commissions and county health organizations should be allowed to regulate agriculture.

Counties developing a land-use policy should ensure a policy favorable to agriculture. We urge all county governments to allow their respective county Farm Bureau the opportunity to help draft a county land-use policy.

We oppose the taking of property for road frontage as a condition for county approval of non-commercial building permits. We also oppose the addition of other unrelated requirements as a condition for the approval of non-commercial building permits.

We oppose changing existing state law setting the minimum size of parcels for subdivided development in the unincorporated area of the county.

Economic Development

Economic development is important to the vitality of all areas of the state. We support efforts by the state legislature and the Department of Economic Development to address the economic development needs in Missouri's agricultural communities.

An example of such a program is the development of rural enterprise zones which give businesses incentives to build and expand in rural areas.

We believe that grain processing plants should be eligible for enterprise zones the same as manufacturing plants which qualify now.

Federal Regulations

We support preventing state regulations from being stricter than federal law unless justified through a public hearing.

We believe economic impact studies for proposed regulations should be made available to industry, landowners and the media before any new regulations are adopted.

We also believe that economic impact studies for proposed regulations should be developed through hearings including affected industry and landowners.

Initiative Petitions

We support legislation which would require sponsoring organizations of initiative petitions to be identified and give accurate and detailed public notice of the provisions contained in the statutory or constitutional changes being proposed. Such notice should be given in advance of any efforts to obtain signatures.

We support legislation which would require people gathering signatures on an initiative petition to ask potential signers of the petition to first read the ballot title.

We support limiting the use of professional signature gathering organizations for initiative petition efforts.

Mailing Lists

We oppose county, city, state and federal government agencies from making mailing lists available to the private sector to be used for business solicitation purposes.

Public Employees

We believe the law preventing the use of public employees on public time and the use of other public resources to pass or defeat a constitutional amendment or proposition before the voters for their approval should be strictly enforced.

Rural Fire Protection

We believe it should remain the right of the citizens in rural communities to determine whether they will be served by volunteer fire departments or tax-supported fire districts.

Whenever possible, we believe rural fire district boundaries should be established to include all of a landowner's contiguous property if the landowner desires to be included in the fire district.

We support legislation that would remove population restrictions in 321.322 RSMo as to provide for a five year phase-out for all fire protection districts and membership departments affected by a municipality annexation.

We believe the same protections should apply to rural fire districts as school districts when subject to forced annexation by municipalities.

We believe any person running for election to a rural fire district board in Third and Fourth Class Counties must live and vote in the fire district he or she is running in.

Rural Housing

We urge federal agencies to examine their programs to ensure that calculations for housing assistance treat outstate rural residents the same as residents in rural metropolitan statistical areas.

Rural Subdivision Streets

We believe rural subdivision street maintenance should be the responsibility of the property owners. If county government accepts the responsibility of rural subdivision street maintenance, county courts should have the authority to levy street improvement taxes.

Rural Water Districts

We oppose efforts to weaken or repeal the authority of rural water districts relative to local control and administration of rural water services.

Sovereign Immunity

We support the complete restoration of sovereign immunity for local government and public officials when acting in an official capacity of the office, and further, if sovereign immunity can not be restored, we oppose raising the limits of sovereign immunity on local agencies.

State Legislature

We are concerned that the integrity of the state and federal legislative process has deteriorated by allowing amendments of an unrelated subject matter to be attached to pending legislation. We believe this practice of piggybacking amendments should be corrected either legislatively or through a constitutional amendment.

We believe the excessive use of executive orders to legislate and regulate, such as executive orders regarding collective bargaining and urban sprawl, bypass the legislative process and should be restricted.

We oppose any effort to reduce the size of the Missouri House of Representatives.

State Regulations

We favor the requirement upon legislators and state agencies filing new laws and state regulations to also file an estimate of the costs to the public sector to comply with the laws and regulations and an estimate on the benefits that the public will receive.

We support the establishment of a state regulatory review commission with agricultural representation to review all state rules and regulations to determine their necessity, their statutory authority and whether or not they should be abolished.

We support the sunset and review of all new and current regulations.

We believe state agencies should be assessed financial penalties for failing to act in accordance with mandatory requirements and deadlines contained in state law.

We support a three-acre exemption on sewage treatment regulations.

We strongly oppose the State Health Department contracting with county health officials to enforce stringent health regulations at the county level that result in the discontinuation of county fairs' and local churches' fundraising activities.

EDUCATION

Agricultural Education

Few courses of study and related extracurricular activities do as much for leadership training and personal development as vocational agriculture. Therefore, we favor and urge continued emphasis on agricultural education in Missouri.

We support "10 x 15: The Long-Range Goal for Agricultural Education" to help create new programs in communities not yet served by agricultural education and FFA and ensure the quality and high performance of current programs providing personal, academic and career education in agriculture. We support an increase in federal funding to advance the initiative.

We encourage students to enter agricultural education with an emphasis on classroom education. We also support financial aid and incentives for students and agricultural education graduates that commit to teaching in the area of agricultural education from rural to urban areas of Missouri.

Currently, many high school students can not meet college entrance requirements and take agricultural education classes because college entrance requirements generally allow very few electives outside the required English, Math, Science and Social Studies courses. We believe all public universities in Missouri should accept certain agricultural education courses to fulfill entrance requirements such as allowing three units of vocational agriculture to meet the requirement for two units of science.

We believe there is a need for advanced training of adult farm employees in today's farming operations. We support the institution of certificate programs through the University of Missouri, University Extension, state colleges, community colleges and area vocational schools that would meet the educational needs and provide the technical training of farm employees.

We support continued full funding by the state for adult agricultural education.

We believe that all state-funded educational institutions in Missouri should be encouraged to offer an introductory agriculture course as a component of general education requirements.

We support the ALOT (Agricultural Leaders of Tomorrow) program.

We believe agriculture education programs offered in secondary educational institutions should be twelve-month programs. All teachers within these programs should be employed to teach on a twelve-month contract.

Universities producing agriculture graduates aspiring to become teachers should be provided a solid foundation knowledge and understanding of the culture of rural America and production agriculture.

Agriculture in the Classroom

We commend the Agriculture in the Classroom program, which has developed educational materials, including online programs, on agriculture for use in the school systems and would encourage their acceptance in the curricula of all schools.

We favor increasing the annual federal appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agriculture in the Classroom" program.

Credit Transferability

We support the development of a standardized system for the equal transfer of credits such as math, science, English, etc., within all accredited universities, colleges and community colleges in Missouri.

Driver Education

We believe driver education should be made available to all Missouri high school students.

Economic Education

We favor basic instruction in economic principles for teachers and students in our public schools.

Federal Department of Education

We believe that decisions affecting education, including the distribution of tax revenue, should be made at the state and local level. Therefore, we support the dissolution of the Federal Department of Education.

Foreign Students

We believe Missouri students should be given priority for financial assistance and admission over foreign students into tax supported institutions of higher education.

Higher Education

We believe that fiscal efficiency is of the utmost importance at all Missouri institutions of higher education.

We believe that financial aid packages should keep pace with annual increases in both tuition and associated fees.

We do not believe any academic institution should compete with agricultural producers for farmland unless: 1) it can be proven that land already owned by the institution is not suitable; 2) efforts were made to contract for the production with local farmers, and; 3) the institution conducts public outreach to explain the reasons for its actions.

We believe a greater emphasis should be placed on education in International Marketing.

We support additional funding for research to develop new uses and markets for Missouri agricultural products.

We believe persons desiring to bequeath land to an institution of higher education should do so without stipulation to allow for the best use of the resource.

We do not believe admission standards should include a foreign language requirement. Certain vocational agriculture and human environmental science courses should qualify as science units.

We do not believe that academic standards should be too reliant upon test scores and class rank. Non-academic factors such as willingness to work hard and strong leadership skills are often a better predicator of success.

We believe the governing body of each institution of higher education in Missouri should include an active agricultural producer.

We believe a greater emphasis should be placed on professors teaching rather than non-teaching activities.

We believe that credits earned within a school or university should be acceptable in every academic program at the school or university.

We support line item budgeting to provide administrators with greater control of their finances.

We believe a strong system of public higher education is essential to our state in order to provide Missouri residents affordable and meaningful post high school educational opportunities.

Higher Standards of Education

In keeping with the principles of Farm Bureau philosophy, we support a strong academic education for all Missouri students. We strongly support the right and role of parental responsibility for their children's attendance and performance in public schools. We would also encourage increased parental accountability and involvement in their children's evaluation, assessment and curriculum through local boards of education.

We recognize that students should be expected to obtain proficiency in the basics of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and history. To this end, adequate public hearings and legislative approval should be required before offering the academic standards and statewide assessment system to the local school board for approval or rejection.

We oppose changes in Missouri high school graduation credit requirements that restrict course options for students such as agriculture education and other electives.

We do not believe it to be in the best interest of Missouri educators or Missouri students to implement an exit exam for high school graduation. We will not support any standards or assessment system to be used for punitive actions against local school districts, such as withholding of state school funds, consolidation of schools, or the removal of local school boards.

We oppose Transformational Outcome Based Education as found in the 1993 Outstanding Schools Act.

We stand opposed to both its philosophy and implementation in Missouri's schools, both secondary and higher educational institutions.

We call upon Missouri legislators to repeal the reform portion of the Outstanding Schools Act.

Be it further resolved that we favor an educational system that is driven by academic standards that can be objectively tested. We further believe that the education of our children can best be managed on a local level.

We believe that A+ funds should be available for students who meet the requirements and that students be allowed to use the amount of money they receive at any community college or four-year institution.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

We support provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to allow students with disabilities to be disciplined in the same way other students are disciplined provided that the student's behavior is not related to his or her disability.

Language

We favor English as the compulsory language in all schools. Bilingual education shall be limited to a transitional role.

Length of School Year

In order to be competitive in an increasingly complex world, we favor improving the quality of education within the time frame of the existing school year.

We oppose extending the minimum school year beyond the current 174 days.

Parents As Teachers

We favor full funding by the state for the Parents as Teachers program.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

We favor the State Department of Education encouraging local school boards to lower their pupil-teacher ratio in the elementary grades by working to increase funding in the school foundation program. We believe each school district should have the authority to establish its own ratio.

School Boards

We favor local control in the form of elected school boards for the management of school districts.

We believe that convicted sex offenders should not serve on local school boards.

School Employees

We are opposed to strikes by school employees.

We favor legislation that would penalize teachers or other school employees who deliberately violate the law by striking after they have signed their contracts.

School Finance

We support the concept of a minimum tax levy base in order for local school districts to receive state funds. We oppose any increase in the current minimum tax levy. We believe any school foundation formula should achieve an equitable distribution of funds for rural school districts. We strongly support full funding of the foundation formula for education.

We continue to believe decision-making should remain at the local level as much as possible, that local school districts should be allowed more creative school financing authority, that state management and local administration expenses be kept to a minimum, and that teacher salaries and educational materials receive high priority as increased funding is made available.

Due to the financial cuts to schools, we believe that two rural school districts in the same county with 300 students or less be allowed to share a superintendent of schools.

We believe that student participation in a bonafide 4-H or FFA activity should be an excused absence and the school should not be penalized in the school funding formula as a result of their absence.

We are concerned that local governing bodies, particularly school boards, refuse to roll back tax levies to comply with the state constitution.

We believe that the state constitution has precedence over statutory laws and that failure to comply with the constitution should be grounds for removal from office.

We believe that state funds should be made available to rural school districts for the construction of school buildings through such programs as matching grants or low or no interest loans.

We oppose tax funded child care facilities in our public schools.

We believe the percentage of funding for programs within the Missouri Department of Education should not be cut after a program is started.

Student Loans

We favor the continuation of student loan and work programs. We believe, however, there should be uniform enforcement of penalties for not repaying the loans.

Student Records

We believe that when a student moves to a new school, all records, including academic and discipline records, should be required to be transferred to the new school. Furthermore, we believe any current expulsions or suspensions should be honored by the receiving school. However, records should not be released until all unpaid fees are resolved.

Summer School

We believe summer school is a suitable alternative to retaining students who are not ready to advance to the next grade level as long as they master skills at the same level as students progressing to the same grade level.

We believe summer school in Missouri public schools should be revised to put an emphasis on the curriculum offered during the regular school year.

Teacher Tenure

We recommend that teacher tenure be re-examined at all levels and that some better means be devised to remove incompetent instructors without regard to their tenure.

Testing and Accountability

We commend the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for implementation of the new testing and certification programs for new teachers. We favor having present holders of lifetime teaching certificates recertified every few years to be able to continue teaching.

We favor establishing a basic knowledge test for teachers along the lines of the tests administered to eighth grade students except on a much higher level. We believe that establishing such a program would improve the performance of teachers, create a more favorable public opinion of our teachers and result in a better environment in our schools.

We believe that college teachers, who are training teachers, should be required to take a sabbatical leave every five years and go teach that subject in a public school.

New college teachers who are training teachers need to have previous teaching experience in public schools.

University of Missouri

Missouri Farm Bureau has a long history of supporting the University of Missouri, particularly the teaching, research and Extension efforts in the College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (CAFNR). We believe strongly that a land-grant university is a public university dedicated to meeting the educational and research needs of the state with a strong emphasis on agriculture. We encourage University of Missouri administrators to follow carefully the basic principles of a land-grant university by providing ready access to students from the public sector, ongoing funding of programs with public funds and the continuation of a strong agricultural research and Extension effort.

We believe CAFNR should emphasize the importance and mechanics of modern production agriculture to all students in the college, especially those who intend to pursue careers in the regulatory environment.

We believe that funding above base levels for Agricultural Experiment Stations should be used at the discretion of their respective advisory boards.

We support the Life Science Center and believe agriculture should be a key component of the Center's mission and research programs. We support increased university, state and federal funding for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI).

We believe Agricultural Research Stations play an important role in agricultural research. We support additional funding for competitive research grants, infrastructure and support staff.

We support funding the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station (MoAES) Fund earmarked for agriculture research stations at $6 million annually.

ELECTION LAWS

Campaign Reform

We believe there should be election law reforms at the state and federal levels to afford challengers the same opportunities as incumbents. We favor campaign spending limits. Other reforms could include such things as limits on amounts of money collected for campaigns, unfair use of travel, staff and franking privileges by incumbents, individual contributions to candidates, size of "war chests", and a prohibition on contributions to state incumbents during a legislative session.

We support legislation that only allows financial contributions for Presidential and Congressional candidates from U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote and reside in areas that the candidate would represent.

We are troubled by the amount of negative and misleading advertisements in today's political campaigns. We support efforts to penalize a candidate's campaign for advertisements that are found to be untruthful and slanderous.

We oppose any state or federal elected official from changing their party affiliation during their elected term.

We believe the use of recorded messages for campaign purposes should be abolished. We believe campaigns should abide by Missouri's no-call list.

We have questions regarding the effects of state legislative term limits and have concerns with the direction of campaign financing in Missouri; therefore, we believe Missouri Farm Bureau should conduct an analysis/study concerning these issues and report the results at the most appropriate time to the state and county Farm Bureau boards of directors.

Candidate Residency Requirements

We believe all candidates should be required to be a resident of the area they anticipate representing for at least one year before they can be elected to any office.

Congressional Laws

We believe that the Congress of the U.S. should live under the same legislative laws as mandated for the general public, i.e., medical care, retirement pensions, equal opportunities, discrimination, etc.

Individuals residing illegally in the United States should be excluded from the U.S. Census for the purpose of redistricting congressional districts.

Election Day Registration

We oppose election day voter registration.

Elections

We believe the governor and lieutenant governor should run as a team to avoid the problem of lack of cooperation of officeholders from different parties.

In order to minimize costs, we believe all elections, including presidential primaries and all state ballot issues, should be submitted to the voters on a regularly scheduled election day.

We favor the reopening of filing for candidacy in the event of the death of a candidate prior to an election.

We favor changing the statute on voter fraud from a misdemeanor to a felony.

We urge Congress to prohibit the news media from reporting election results and exit poll results prior to the closing of all applicable polling places.

We support the Electoral College and the certification process.

We believe funeral home