Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012

Particularly relevant in my field of interest, Farm Bill 2012 is a hot topic in Congress, the environmental sphere, and the daily news. However, there should be even more dialogue around Farm Bill 2012 because it is a domestic policy that affects every single American, namely every American stomach.

The Farm Bill is a comprehensive bill that creates the legislative framework for agriculture policy. Including policy initiatives ranging from rural development to nutrition to trade and taxes, the Farm Bill remains in effect for five year periods and is currently approaching its expiration this September. Congressional members of agriculture committees and agricultural leaders are in the process of hearings to assess the success of the previous Farm Bill and make the necessary changes to be included in Farm Bill 2012. 

At one of the seminars this week, upon hearing I worked for an environmental think tank, an alumna of St. Ben’s interjected: You’re following the Farm Bill, aren’t you? It was less of a question and more of a command. I, thankfully, had been following news on Farm Bill 2012, otherwise known as the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, so I could honestly respond that I did have some idea about the recent hearings and the $23 billion budget cut, the bulk of which coming from eliminating direct payments to farmers. However, not all of my classmates had been following the Farm Bill - I was asked by numerous peers what on earth the “farm bill” was. I have found this lack of knowledge is not uncommon - often agricultural policy flies under the radar, it is often something taken for granted, not explored.

Farm Bill 2012 provides a service that should not be taken for granted. Four out of every five dollars in the Farm Bill goes to a popular program citizens do not usually associate with agriculture: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps. The Farm Bill is generally a fairly bipartisan piece of legislation, but partisan politics begin and end with money. An amendment by Republican, Rand Paul, sought to cut $45 billion per year in SNAP spending. Democratic, and chair of the Agriculture Committee, Debbie Stabenow, firmly opposed the amendment stating it was “outrageous and would go completely against the commitment we as a country have made to help those who truly need it.”

After talking to many former Hill staffers, I have learned that the House is where bills go to die. This is not good news for Farm Bill 2012, as the House has not even begun to draft its own farm bill. I understand how Hill staff, from interns to LDs, can become jaded with the legislative process, especially with something as basic and essential as food production. But, the beauty of being an environmental studies major is a mandatory optimistic outlook on the future. As the farm bill debate continues, I have confidence that a compromise can be found - not necessarily a compromise that supports conservation, organic agriculture, or sustainability as much as I would hope - but inevitably, a decision will be made and I will be able and ready to draft an op-ed on the outcome.

Stand right, walk left

Sitting in a classroom learning about the inner workings of our government is far different from sitting on the Metro and experiencing the sights and sounds of the nation’s capital. In my first couple of weeks in Washington, D.C. I have learned one important lesson: Stand right, walk left. This applies not only to escalator etiquette, but to D.C. as a whole. There is no such thing as standing still, and even when you try, everything else moves around you.

It is hard to grasp the speed at which things happen in D.C. from a textbook. My walking speed has increased immensely from its normal Minnesota pace. People are always on the move, but that does not mean that everyone can keep up. Through my “civics” understanding of the federal government, I assumed all D.C. workers were efficient, intelligent, and passionate. I have been slightly disenchanted from this romantic notion. This does not mean that my coworkers do not possess these positive characteristics, but the degree to which they are exercised is variable. 

One of the most exciting aspects of D.C. is the global community. In academia, there is a logical emphasis on Americans in the nation’s capital, but there are also vast amounts of international contingents. My fellow interns represent all sides of the globe and bring their own unique views on global issues (in the case of my organization, poverty eradication, food security, and climate change). My supervisor represents a global perspective in a different way; she works remotely from locations across the map. It is unlikely I will ever have the opportunity to meet her in person because her travels take her from South Africa, to Mexico, and soon Rio de Janeiro for the Rio+20 Earth Summit. This international aspect of my work is fascinating, but lack of face-to-face communication often makes work less efficient due to the constant stream of emails and lack of firsthand mentorship. Also when there are many views representative of many different cultures and ideals, it takes much time and many revisions to write an opinion piece that is universally agreed upon. Despite the decreased efficiency, I greatly appreciate the “world” element of my position at Worldwatch Institute. It is a very apparent reminder that Washington, D.C. not only serves as the capital of the United States, but also lives up to its nickname, the “Center of the Universe.”

Due to the speed at which tasks must be completed, passion is sometimes sacrificed and spread thin. I was slightly disappointed to find that the opinion pieces written by my organization are not individually written with thought and care, but rather are mass-produced. One of my tasks this week was to find local examples from the city where we submitted op-eds and then “customize” our message to the newspaper’s readers. I was also disappointed to find that editors are unlikely to publish these sorts of articles, and my hard work at editing the op-ed pieces is often in vain.

I did witness genuine passion this past week from our country’s members of Congress. One night this week, I noticed the flag was still above the House of Representatives around 9:00. A friend and I walked over to the Capital Visitor Center and made our way to the Gallery. Although not incredibly interesting to me, the representatives debated the budget for various items falling under the umbrella of transportation. One thing that is often not talked about is the around the clock, somewhat mundane, debates. Seeing and hearing these representatives speak to their peers, I acknowledged that these issues are not mundane to them. The congresspeople spoke with passion and eloquence.  I discovered there must be more to a representative’s motive than re-election - as discussed in the Mayhew’s “Electoral Connection” - because even though they did not present on a sexy topic that would be covered in the press the next day, the representatives cared enough to fulfill their duties with passion and to the best of their ability at 10:30PM on a Wednesday night. The clock never stops for the needs of the American people. 

I look forward to discovering more examples of voids between the “civics” understanding of government and my real life experiences in D.C. Meanwhile I will try to keep up and remember to stand right, walk left.

From 40 lb Fish to a Giant Fake Horse: Week 3

Well after this week, I can honestly say that this will not be a short journal entry. Last Sunday I had the opportunity to go deep sea fishing with the former CFO of the House, John Lawler, and Mr. Turch. I also brought Eddie and Mary along to partake in the experience. Mr. Turch arrived at the house around 4:30 on Saturday, and we made our way to Sandy Point, VA, Mr. Lawler's home.

The next morning, we were up by 4am and ready to make our way to the marina to begin our full day of fishing. Mr. Turch had informed me that it's rare that they ever catch large fish when they are out on the Chesapeake Bay, but it happens from time to time. Not having a clue what to expect from this experience, I decided it would probably be a long day in the boat with not much excitement. However, I love being on the water so I was not complaining!

After being out for about 3 hours, we were trolling when both my line and Eddie's went down. There was so much commotion on the boat that I had no idea what to do, so I grabbed the nearest line and started to do what I thought was the best way to reel in what I thought was probably a boot or some other debris. I found out very quickly, from Mr. Turch, that I was reeling this "thing" into the boat by the most difficult means possible. After I was instructed on the best way to reel the "thing" into the boat, it was much easier to say the least.

And then I saw the biggest fish ever at the crest of the wave right in front of the boat, all I could think was, "O shit, this is where it ends!" I thought that I would certainly be pulled over, but I just kept reeling more and more line back to the boat. After what seemed like an hour, I had finally reeled a 40lb red drum to the boat. Mr. Lawler came over to my side of the boat with the net, and in his excitement, grabbed my line. When Mr. Lawler grabbed the line, it snapped in half and the fish swam away as fast as it could.

Mr. Lawler felt extremely bad about what he did. However, I was in awe of the fact that my chicken arms were able to reel a 40 lb fish to the boat. I know consider that a lifetime achievement for me.

When I returned to the office on Monday, I knew I had quite a few tasks to complete. Mr. Turch had given me the task of setting up a meeting for him. I took on this task with great pride because it was one of the first more important tasks he has given me. Everything went as planned with the calling. Some people were easier to contact than others, but by the next day, everyone that was supposed to be at the meeting was there. Mr. Turch informed me I had done a great job, and hopefully, that means I will be doing a little more for him in the future.

A second task that I had to complete this week was to attend Barbara Boxer's press conference on the transportation and reauthorization bill. She spoke of the House needing to get its act together and pass this completely bipartisan bill that is being prevented from being passed by a few House Republicans. The bill passed with 74 votes in favor in the House, and I find myself getting angry with the fact that the House will not pass a bill that will create 3 million jobs domestically. It really does not make sense!

Once the news conference was over, I made my way back to the office to finish some of the preparation for the Monocle event on Thursday and the "Cottage" event on Friday. Everything went smoothly with those preparations as well. On Thursday, the Monocle reception went well. Everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves, and I broadened my network here in D.C. Mr. Turch also had me give a short speech to introduce the student speakers, which I though went quite well.

By Friday, I was just ready for the weekend. This week had been so busy, and all I wanted to do was sleep. However, the event at Mr. Turch's home was that evening, and I could not wait to meet more of his friends. The event at his home went extremely well. Only one minor incident with the breaking of a wine glass, but everyone seemed to be having a delightful time. I was also put in charge of giving tours of Mr. Turch and Meridel's artwork throughout the home. I had heard they were collectors of many artworks, but I was not expecting a life-size horse called, "Brandon Spectrum's Nightmare", to be encompassing an entire bedroom! It was definitely one of the most interesting pieces of their collection.

All in all this week went by very quickly with a few minor hiccups. It was great that I was able to meet so many great people and broaden my network. I also now have a piece of writing for my portfolio. I had written a memo on the Boxer press conference, and Kevin will be putting it in the David Turch and Associates newsletter. Needless to say, I feel very accomplished after this week

Drew Stommes: Second Week Journal

A debate roars between academia and the policy making community: individuals in each of these realms have not shied away from lobbing criticism at the other. James Joyner of Outside the Beltway castigated the IR academic community when he said, “The down side, though, is that the academic study of IR has divorced itself from the real world study of the actual conduct of international relations…And the work being done by academics in IR is largely irrelevant and inaccessible to the policy community.” Daniel Drezner countered Joyner by showing how academic research can be policy-relevant and suggests ways in which academics could help to make their work more accessible to policy wonks and policy-makers.

How does this pertain to my experiences in Washington, D.C. so far? Well, I have hitherto been exposed primarily to the academic and theoretical perspective of politics, reading the same scholarly sources that Joyner chastised in his blog post as well as text books written for undergraduate-level students. So far, I have seen several examples of differences between the theory-based, academic perspective of politics and the “real world” view of politics. First, the theory-based, academic approach does not capture the emotions and passion of politics in the real world. Second, policy makers’ tools of analysis are a vital part of making decisions and coming to conclusions. Finally, “real world” politics is conducted in “real-time,” and analysis is made at a moment’s notice. Academia has the leisure of taking its time and gathering data and information to create theories and conclusions (not necessarily a bad thing). It is important, notwithstanding these differences, that the theory and the “real world” sides connect to help to inform one another.

I have had numerous opportunities to see how emotions and passion factor into policy-makers’ and political figures’ views of certain issues. I recently attended an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where the former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear weapons program discussed a new book he wrote on the development of the country’s nuclear program. It is both a memoir and an analytic piece wrapped into one. When he spoke of his views, which are much different than the predominant ones in the U.S. on this issue, his emotion and passion for Iran’s nuclear program helped me to empathize a bit with Iran’s policy. Without the emotion and passion and face-to-face interaction, I would feel a bit differently about Iran’s nuclear program. This dynamic is something that an academic paper cannot capture and convey to its readers.

The second difference is that I have had the chance to learn about the tools that policymakers and wonks have at their disposal to analyze political developments and trends. I have had three such opportunities. First, an information session at the U.S. capitol hosted by the Federation of American Scientists looked at the development of nuclear detection technology that helps the Department of Homeland Security address the threat of nuclear terrorism. Second, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center held an informational seminar on geospatial information systems (GIS) and how it can be used by think tanks and policy-makers to glean insights into various geopolitical developments. The third event was held again by the Federation of American Scientists, this time at their office near the Farragut North Metro Station. A few experts showed how we can use satellite imagery to detect other countries’ nuclear forces as well as their nuclear postures. Hans Kristensen, an FAS expert, used satellite imagery to conclude that China has two or three nuclear submarines and that it had one nuclear launcher pointed towards a Russian base in Kamchatka (two of several examples). These three examples show how policymakers have tools at their disposal, and these tools bring them to perceive issues in certain ways. These tools of analysis are not discussed much in the theory of policymaking. Rather, the theory is mainly focused on behavior and the decision-making processes of the policymakers/actors.

A final difference is that think tanks and policymakers deal with imperfect information that is often given to them at a moment’s notice, oftentimes as political events unfold. In contrast, academics and those involved in the ‘theory’ side of politics can spend a much greater amount of time accumulating data and information and then coming to conclusions. Each side is important though. The analysis provided by think tanks and decisions made by policymakers are much more ‘in the moment’ (although many think tanks research issues spanning long periods of time). Academia can provide insights to broader political trends and the policy implications of those trends.

To conclude, it is vital to understand that both the “real world” and theoretical world can help to inform each other, enrich each others’ body of work, and provide more informed policy prescriptions in the future.