The full House this week took up and shot down half a dozen competing FY2013 budget proposals, ultimately approving the $1.0287-trillion House Budget Committee’s resolution just before Congress’ two-week spring recess. Prior to approving the committee resolution that would cut agriculture spending by about $180 billion over 10 years, the House rejected handily President Obama’s FY2013 budget request – as included in a GOP amendment that “mirrored” the president’s budget (0-414), a separate Democrat budget (163-262), a Progressive Caucus budget (78-346), a Black Caucus budget (107-314), an amendment based on the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission plan (38-382) and a Tea Party/Republic Study Committee budget proposal (136-285). The Senate is not expected to consider a formal budget resolution.
Stabenow Shoots for End-of-April Markup – Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, confirmed media reports this week that her committee is targeting the last week in April to start committee markup of its 2012 Farm Bill, with the committee’s goal being a bill ready for the floor by May 1. She further confirmed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is willing to bring the bill to the floor as long as it comes out of the committee with “strong bipartisan support.” The commodity title remains the biggest hurdle.
Lucas Says House Ag May Try to Cut $30 Billion – In an interview this week with AgriTalk radio, House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) said he expects his committee will shoot to pare ag spending over the next decade by about $30 billion, somewhat less than recommended in the recently passed House Budget Resolution, but $7 billion more than the $23 billion he and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate ag panel, agreed to last year during the deficit wars. Lucas said the ultimate number is yet to be determined, but he warned that House cuts may have to be deeper than previously thought because of the politics of spending that could block the bill on the House floor. Lucas also acknowledged what Farm Bill veterans lobbyists know: The House and Senate Farm Bills are where damage control is done on program rewrites; it’s the conference committee between the two chambers where the ultimate Farm Bill is written.
Conrad, Baucus, Hoeven Introduce Commodity Title Bill – A bipartisan trio of Canadian border state Senators this week introduced their version of a 2012 Farm Bill commodity title, saying their version is friendlier to their farmers and ranchers than the shallow loss approach being examined by the full Senate Agriculture Committee. The bill also contains lower target prices and a disaster program proposal. The three call their bill the Revenue Loss Assistance & Crop Insurance Enhancement Act, and point at the Revenue Loss Assistance Program (RLAP) as its centerpiece, a move that combines the current SURE and ACRE programs. RLAP would kick in on losses of 12-25 percent on average historic revenue based on individual farm performance, and an eligible loss would be any combination of decreased yields, falling prices or quality discounts. Aid would also be available for farmers with losses on planted acreage at 65 percent rate, and acreage that couldn’t be planted due to weather would get a 45-percent payment rate, limited to total base acres. The three Senators would continue but modify the commodity loan program and countercyclical programs, but end direct payments and ACRE payments beginning in 2013. Conrad said the bill is “a version of shallow loss and fits hand-in-glove with crop insurance.”
Former Ag Secretaries Call for Strong Conservation Compliance Compact – Former Secretaries of Agriculture Dan Glickman and Ann Veneman this week sent House and Senate ag committee leadership a letter calling on them to “renew the conservation compact between taxpayers and farmers.” The “compact,” the two said, is a provision of the 1985 Farm Bill called conservation compliance that “sparked a decade of unprecedented progress in limiting soil erosion, cleaning up waterways and protecting wetlands.” This compact, they said, has protected 140 million acres of highly erodible land and reduced soil wash into streams by 40 percent.
Tax Groups Attack Dairy Market Stabilization Program – A trio of tax activist groups this week sent a letter to House and Senate Agriculture Committees opposing inclusion in the 2012 Farm Bill of any version of the controversial new Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP) being promoted by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) as reinvention of its current federal support programs. Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union said DMSP is “contrary to the goals of limited government and economic growth” and that “a new federal program that will directly intervene in markets and increase milk prices for everyone is unnecessary.” DMSP requires farmers who sign up for a new margin insurance program based on feed costs to also agree to periodic government-set limits on milk production. The three tax groups said DMSP is nothing more than supply control to artificially increase producer prices.
Eight of the nation’s largest ethanol interests – under the banner of the Advanced Ethanol Council – this week sent a letter to a Senate Finance Committee subcommittee telling members the council needs to see extension of “key cellulosic ethanol tax provisions set to expire at the end of 2012.” The subcommittee is wrestling with how to extend expired and expiring alternative fuel federal tax incentives, and the council wants included in any extension package the cellulosic biofuels producer tax credit and the special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has tried twice unsuccessfully to get the broader roster of biofuels tax extenders – including biodiesel and renewable diesel – attached to other legislation. The groups said without the extensions Congress will “drive clean energy investment overseas and put the U.S. behind the eight ball when it comes to clean energy development.”
Former MG Global (MFG) CEO John Corzine is under scrutiny again after House Financial Services Committee investigators released emails this week that seem to indicate Corzine ordered the transfer of $200 million from protected customer accounts to MFG accounts to cover a company overdraft. Meanwhile, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), ranking member of the ag panel, introduced a resolution opposing bonuses for MFG executives, calling the notion of rewarding those who were in charge of the company when it went bankrupt “outrageous.” The ag leaders said the amount of MFG assets now “missing” may total as much as $1.6 billion. At the same time, The National Futures Association (NFA) has recommended to federal regulators the so-called “Corzine rule,” a joint effort with the CME Group, the Kansas City Board of Trade and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, that would strengthen protections for customers’ segregated funds. The proposal holds that any time a futures broker wants to transfer more than 25 percent of its excess funds from a customer account to a corporate account, a company executive would have to immediately notify regulators of the transfer. An October 28, 2011 email, sent days before MFG filed for bankruptcy, written by MFG Assistant Treasurer Edith O’Brien, appears to confirm Corzine gave “direct instructions” to transfer $200 million from a customer’s account to JP Morgan Chase in London to cover an MFG corporate overdraft. O’Brien has been subpoenaed to appear before the House Financial Services Committee next week. Corzine’s spokesman denied the former Senator and New Jersey Governor gave O’Brien any direction to transfer the money, and that subsequent information supplied to Corzine by executives indicated the funds used to cover the JP Morgan overdraft “were appropriate for that purpose.” A memo prepared by committee staff reports JP Morgan’s chief risk officer Barry Zubrow called Corzine to seek assurance the transferred monies belonged to MFG, not customer accounts.
Having reached no agreement on whether to accept a two-year, $109-billion federal highway program reauthorization as passed by the Senate or come up with a bill it can pass on its own, the House this week passed another 90-day extension and the Senate quickly followed suit despite complaints from Senate leadership. The House successfully passed its 90-day extension – even though House Democrats said they’d only accept a 60-day continuation of federal highway and waterways infrastructure and urban commuter program spending. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he was “not inclined” to take up another extension, said the House should pass the Senate bill, and then his chamber passed the 90-day extension with no trouble. House leadership says it will have a deal on its five-year, $260-billion bill by the time Congress returns from its two-week Easter recess, but twice this GOP House leadership pulled bills to extend the highway programs when it became clear they could not get the two-thirds vote necessary for passage. Democrats continue to push for their version of the Senate-passed bill.
A bill designed to address “the critical needs of the inland waterways system” was set for introduction this week by a bipartisan group of House members. The bill – the Waterways Are Vital for the Economy, Energy, Efficiency and Environment (WAVE4) – is the brainchild of Reps. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Jerry Costello (D-IL), John Duncan (R-TN), Tim Johnson (R-IL) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO). The bill would push forward the Capital Development Plan which includes funding to modernize and upgrade waterways and infrastructure, including locks and dams. The bill was referred to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, and the goal is to roll it into a broader rewrite of the Water Resources Development Act.
Drawing strong agriculture support this week, a bill by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), chair and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, respectively, would create a new foundation to raise money from private sources to supplement federal agriculture research funding. In a related development, more than 900 organizations representing production agriculture, feed, food and grocery manufacturers, technology providers, university administrators, science groups and individual scientists told the House and Senate appropriations committees this week that as they cobble together their FY2013 ag spending bills, there must be “strong investment” in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission. The Stabenow-Roberts bill would set up the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) as a federal 501(c)(3) charity to receive tax deductible contributions. The two Senators said of their proposal: “This model serves as a useful tool to foster new public-private partnerships among the agriculture research community, including USDA research agencies, academia, private corporations and non-profit organizations.” FFAR would be similar to other federal foundations that serve medical research, public health and safety, and natural resource conservation. Said the groups pushing for more FY2013 spending on ag research: “The success of agriculture and the food industry play a significant role in the overall health and security of the U.S. economy, and have been one of few bright spots in recent years.”
As the U.S. Special Trade Representative (USTR) prepares to formally appeal a World Trade Organization (WTO) decision that the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law is illegal, some national livestock producer groups fear the action could spur retaliation by Canada and Mexico against U.S. meat exports. At the same time, a coalition of 40 national agriculture and food organizations sent an open letter to President Obama and members of Congress expressing concern over USTR’s creation of a working group to explore a possible free trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union (EU). The groups are concerned the approach being taken – a “single undertaking” approach where the success of one section depends on success in all other sections – is unrealistic and dooms the effort before it begins. On COOL, the original WTO complaint was filed by Mexico and Canada contending the new U.S. labeling law for meat products would unfairly reduce those countries’ meat exports to the U.S. Under COOL, for a meat label to list “U.S. origin” the animal must have been born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. An animal born in Canada, for instance, but slaughtered in the U.S. carries a “mixed origin” label. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) urged the Obama Administration and Congress to resolve the labeling issue to avoid damaging trade relations with Canada and Mexico. The National Farmers Union (NFU) supports the USTR plan. On the issue of a possible FTA with the EU, the ag/food groups wrote: “Negotiators should seek positive outcomes in each area at whatever negotiating pace is possible. Moreover, forward movement should not be stymied by attempting to resolve all those difficult issues that have proven intractable in the past.” To approach the discussions with a “single undertaking” approach, the group said, is a “recipe for a small, rather than a bold transatlantic trade deal.” The coalition said an end to “unjustifiable” EU sanitary/phytosanitary restrictions against U.S. products should be a high priority in the U.S.-EU discussions.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack this week told a gathering at the Department of Labor honoring United Farm Workers founder/leader Cesar Chavez, that Congress must fix broken immigration laws, and that all farm workers in the U.S. illegally should have a way to gain legal status. Vilsack called the undocumented workers “orphans,” workers who deserve concern, and said Congress must reform immigration laws to make it easier to recruit foreign workers. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the Obama Administration is committed to enforcement of immigration laws, and said new regulations for H-2A temporary ag visas were part of the President’s commitment. She also said her department is hiring 300 new investigators as part of its enforcement action. Meanwhile, a new national survey by fruit and vegetable producer group Western Growers revealed this week 70 percent of “likely voters” in this fall’s election support a guest worker program with strong rules. Western Growers President Tom Nassif, a member of the Mitt Romney ag advisory committee, said the survey results belies GOP assumptions its base won’t support a guest worker program. Western Growers, which conducted the poll in January, described to voters a program that would make jobs available to U.S. workers first; restrict points of entry and length of stay; market-based limitations on the number of visas issued would be in place; both Social Security and Medicare taxes would be withheld from the pay of foreign workers; foreign workers could stay up to 12 months, with an option to renew for another 12 months; employers would be subject to federal oversight, and the program would allow workers currently in the U.S. to participate, but would not grant amnesty to illegals. A majority of poll respondents said, however, they object to workers being able to bring spouses and children with them, and that illegal workers in the U.S. should not be allowed to stay.
The increasingly controversial proposed rule from the Department of Labor (DOL) to restrict teenagers from participating in several on-farm jobs and related ag activities has been targeted by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), chair of the labor/HHS/education subcommittee in House appropriations, who said this week he will act to mitigate the DOL rulemaking through restricting funding, and can “assure the committee this will be addressed in the budget.” Said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), a member of the subcommittee: “I grew up on a ranch. I was driving tractors when I was 8, 9, 10 years old. I don’t know how to thread a sewing machine, but I know how to thread a baler and that gave me a great deal of self-esteem as a young, paid farm worker.” Both Rehberg and Lummis’ remarks were directed at Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis who testified before the subcommittee this week on FY2013 appropriations for her department. Meanwhile, House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) issued a statement this week calling the DOL rulemaking a “misguided attack on family farms.” Lucas said during Farm Bill field hearings, he has heard repeatedly from farmers and ranchers of their concern about the DOL rulemaking, and said it’s just another example of “top-down, stifling regulations coming out of the Obama Administration.” The Rehberg action backstops legislation introduced last week by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), along with 38 cosponsors. Moran’s bill would block the DOL from finalizing any part of the workplace safety rules it proposed last September, and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), a cosponsor and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the department has gone way too far. “We need the Department of Labor to take a big pill of common sense and back off,” Roberts said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, joined Sens. Jeff Session (R-AL) and Pat Roberts (R-KS), along with House counterparts Rep. Dan Mica (R-FL), transportation committee chair, and Ag Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) in a letter to the White House asking the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to halt finalization of a federal report upon which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to expand its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate “virtually every body of water in the U.S. no matter how small.” The report, released last May and done by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, is entitled “Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act,” and is the basis, the lawmakers said, for an Obama Administration move to regulate a much broader array of waters, including irrigation ditches, ground water, and “puddles of water on the road.” The bicameral group said such an action should be done through rulemaking and not guidance, as guidance does include public participation.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed this week carbon pollution standards for new power plants, a move some said is a retreat from previous efforts to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, while others contend this is the EPA’s backdoor move to get greater control over greenhouse gas pollution. The agency says the new rule simply reflects the nature of the power industry. The proposed final rulemaking applies only to plants to be built in the future, and does not apply to existing plants or those that will begin construction in the next 12 months, the EPA said. The agency said the rule is designed, in part, to provide an incentive to utility companies to accelerate an industry trend to “take advantage of American-made technologies, including new, clean-burning efficient natural gas general, which is already the technology of choice for new and planned power plants.” The agency said the rule will also allow plants to burn coal, but to take advantage of a “wide array of available technologies” that reduce carbon emissions.