Dairy dispute derails conference action on farm bill; other issues 'almost there'
A dispute over the fate of the farm bill dairy supply controls is delaying final action on the farm bill until later this month.
The political faceoff took place last week between House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Agriculture Committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), delaying the planned release of a conference framework and a meeting of the full conference committee.
While lead negotiators told reporters “we’re almost there,” one House Republican senior staff member said the longer the draft framework is unresolved, the more likely “done” items will be reopened for further discussion.
With a week-long recess beginning Jan. 20, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she hopes at least one chamber will approve the farm bill conference report early this week. It now appears it will be late January or early February before an approved conference report will see President Obama’s signature.
The central issue is whether a plan to replace existing dairy support programs with a margin insurance program and mandatory supply milk management will survive. It is favored by the National Milk Producers Federation and Peterson, but opposed by dairy processors, small independent farmers and Boehner. The Senate bill contains the full dairy program rewrite, which supporters say protects the market from overproduction and avoids increased U.S. Department of Agriculture payments. The supply management portion was stripped from the House farm bill during floor debate with Boehner calling it a “Soviet-style” program.
Recently, Boehner, Peterson and Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), chair of the House Agriculture Committee and the Farm Bill Conference Committee, talked by phone. The purpose was to determine if Boehner, who has personally and directly engaged on the supply control provision, was willing to compromise on the language. Boehner rejected any compromise, saying he’s opposed milk supply controls during his full 23-year House tenure. He also said if the final conference report contains supply control language, he might not bring the report to the floor for a final vote.
Last week Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and David Scott (D-Ga.), the duo who successfully amended the House farm bill to strip out supply controls, released a statement supporting Boehner, saying there’s broad industry and political opposition to milk supply management. Boehner told reporters he’s confident he’ll prevail in the political tug-of-war with Peterson.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), former chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the original author of the Milk Income Loss Coverage program, has been trying to find alternative language to satisfy Boehner and others who oppose supply controls. One plan reportedly being examined closely is one devised by a team of Ohio State University professors. This idea would modify MILC so producers receive supports when milk prices drop below a target price adjusted to reflect feed costs but doesn’t include milk supply controls. Another option being considered is to give producers a choice between the current or a modified MILC contract and the new margin insurance/supply management. This is how conferees resolved differences in conflicting crop support options.
Other issues to be decided by the full conference committee include payment limits for farmers who participate in USDA programs. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Senate ag panel but not a conferee, is lobbying both Senate and House members to support his straight $250,000 per individual/$500,000 per couple limit, along with a stricter definition of “farmer.”
On cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, it’s reported conferees have agreed to cut the federal food stamp program by $9 billion over 10 years. This will be achieved by rewriting eligibility rules and ending state programs that automatically enroll recipients of federal heating oil assistance. Unresolved is language sought by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) to require food stamp recipients to be working or in a work training program.
Other open issues include language to fix redundant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act rules on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting for the use of pesticides near or on waterways; country-of-origin labeling of meats; whether the farm bill will move federal catfish inspection from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to USDA, ending a separate USDA catfish program that critics call redundant and wasteful. Also open is the so-called “King amendment” that would allow the federal government to preempt state laws that prescribe livestock and poultry production standards and then bar the sale of out-of-state products not produced under identical state standards.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has agreed to extend the comment period on its proposed rule governing animal food preventative controls and good manufacturing practices required by the Food Safety Modernization Act. Comments are now due March 31.
The request came from the American Feed Industry Association, the National Grain & Feed Association, the Pet Food Institute and the National Renderers Association.
In addition to the “feed rule,” the industry is developing comments on FSMA rules covering third party auditor accreditation and foreign supplier verification. Another rule set to be published before the March 31 deadline is a proposal implementing transportation sanitation covering both rail and motor carrier transport of ingredients, feeds and human foods.
Comments also are being developed on how FDA should implement the modified Veterinary Feed Directive program that provides veterinary oversight for the use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry feed and water.
In a bid to change the Republican anti-immigration reform image, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said broad immigration reform is a priority for the House and that he and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) will release their party’s immigration “principles and standards” in a few weeks. His statement came after a closed-door meeting of House Republicans last week.
The Senate passed an omnibus immigration reform bill in 2013 with strong bipartisan support. However, Boehner has refused to take up the Senate bill, preferring to pass smaller individual bills dealing with various aspects of immigration reform. Those bills would be melded into a single package on the House floor.
Boehner’s statements, and those of Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chair of the Judiciary Committee with oversight of immigration legislation, sought to blunt criticism of the House Republican leadership’s piecemeal approach to passing immigration reform. Goodlatte moved four bills through his committee in 2013, including one dealing with ag labor, but despite Cantor’s promises last fall to begin floor consideration of those bills, none has been brought to the floor.
The principles and standards are unknown. What is known is immigration reform is a top issue for a significant bloc of voters who voted against Republican candidates in 2012. Boehner said Goodlatte has been meeting with other committee chairs and House leadership and the product will be “(an) outline of standards, principles that would guide us a common sense, step-by-step approach to immigration.”
Immigration reform supporters are buoyed by Boehner’s hiring of veteran Hill staff member Rebecca Tallent, a well-respected immigration reform expert who worked for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). However, they remain concerned Republicans will try and avoid granting illegal immigrants full citizenship status. Goodlatte, for instance, generally talks about granting illegal workers “legal status,” one of three tenets of the Republican’s policy on immigration. The other two are first and foremost border security, followed by “fixing” the immigration system.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said immigration reform is a priority issue and it will “pull out all the stops” to see enactment of a reform bill this year. On the political side of the immigration debate, several Republican members remain concerned the White House will ignore whatever Congress eventually enacts and approach immigration with its own agenda.
In order to avoid another government shutdown, the recently enacted FY2014 federal budget resolution was supposed to clear the way for congressional appropriators to hammer together a $1.012 trillion omnibus spending package for the remainder of this fiscal year and get it to the president by this week. That likely won’t happen as lawmakers wrangle over non-spending language tacked on by both House and Senate appropriations committees.
The plan is to take the spending bills already approved by both committees, make them fit the higher discretionary spending limit agreed to in the budget resolution and then roll the unfinished bills into the package. Agriculture/Food and Drug Administration appropriations are among the finished bills, and sources said that bill is “closed” to any further changes. Amounts and spending details have not been released.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Congress may have to pass a “very short-term” continuing resolution to give her and her House counterpart Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) more time to overcome the political hurdles created by an “unrealistic timetable” for negotiating the omnibus spending package.
Rogers said they won’t hit Wednesday's deadline – when the current continuing resolution expires – to get the bill through both chambers, signaling a short continuing resolution is on deck this week.
The chair and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and the chair of the House Ways & Means Committee have introduced legislation to give the president trade promotion authority (TPA), also called “fast track” trade authority. TPA would allow the White House to negotiate trade deals; Congress could only approve or reject the pacts with no amendments.
However, the bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the finance panel, his ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chair of the House tax writing committee, was rejected almost immediately by Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), Camp’s ranking member, and several other House Democrats, including Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.).
Levin said he opposes the bill because it does not include a bigger role for Congress in trade negotiations and has fallen short of adequately replacing the failed 2002 TPA model. Levin said he’s working on his own bill to “meet today’s needs in a rapidly globalizing economy.” He and De Lauro want to see protections for U.S. businesses and workers hurt by imports and currency reforms, as well as strengthened environmental and labor requirements in any treaty negotiated by the White House.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he’ll only act on the fast track bill if the effort is bipartisan. The lack of a House Republican as a cosponsor makes the bill’s fate uncertain, he said.
The House has passed a bill designed to overhaul the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviews regulations under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. The bill requires EPA to review and change RCRA rules “as necessary” rather than every three years as it does now.
House Republicans said the new requirement would let the agency get rid of outdated and unnecessary rules, but Democrat opponents said the bill is “misguided and superfluous.” The White House opposes the bill, mainly based on some unrelated Superfund amendments added to the measure on the floor, signaling Senate action is unlikely.
State legislatures are back in session looking at bills that would require labeling of foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients and would make it a crime to videotape on farms without permission or failure to report animal abuse.
It’s expected as many as 26 statehouses will consider some form of GM labeling legislation. First out of the gate is Vermont, which saw introduced in the Senate a previously approved House bill to require GM labeling, while exempting animal feeds. Expected to follow in short order are New Hampshire and New York. Connecticut was the only state to have enacted a labeling law until last week when the Maine governor signed a labeling requirement bill passed last year. Both states have significant requirements before the labeling is required, including that four other New England states enact similar legislation.
On a related note, Congress is expected to take up the issue of GM labeling for the first time this year. While amendments to grant states the authority to require labeling that does not conform with Food and Drug Administration policy failed twice in as many years as amendments to unrelated legislation, the Grocery Manufacturers Association has formed a broad industry coalition seeking introduction of bills to preempt states on GM labeling, define “natural” on food and feed labels and require FDA to issue specific guidance on how a company can voluntarily label for the presence or absence of GM ingredients.
Last year, state legislatures looked at 15 bills criminalizing unauthorized videotaping on farms and ranches. Of those, 11 were considered and all failed.
New Hampshire lawmakers introduced HB110 in 2014 that makes it a crime to witness animal abuse or neglect and not report it. The bill requires witnesses to report within 48 hours or face fines. The bill is aimed at animal rights groups that gain illegal access to farms and slaughterhouses, videotape alleged abuse and then wait extended periods before releasing the video to the media. Tennessee passed a similar bill last year.
Indiana’s SB101 protecting farms from illegal videotaping will be heard this week in the House. A Senate bill introduced last year failed, and animal rights opponents of this session’s bill call it “more radical and overreaching than” the failed Senate bill.