• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

House passes farm bill with support of most ag groups

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
House passes farm bill with support of most ag groups
Friday, July 27, 2007, 4:15 PM

by Peter Shinn

The House of Representatives passed its version of the farm bill Friday by a vote of 231 to 191. The vote was closer than it otherwise would have been because of the funding mechanism used to pay for additional spending on nutrition and other programs included in the farm bill. Democrats decided to end a tax exemption for foreign companies that employ U.S. workers, describing the move as "closing a tax loophole," and many Republicans balked, characterizing the move as a "tax increase."

Most ag and commodity groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and National Farmers Union (NFU), praised House passage of the farm bill. And NFU President Tom Buis told Brownfield lawmakers had little choice in the measure’s revenue-generating provision.

"You know, the money had to come from somewhere - everyone knew it," Buis said. "And just for it to appear by magic wasn't going to happen."

Indeed, AFBF Director of Congressional Relations Mary Kay Thatcher told Brownfield Farm Bureau backed the House version of the farm bill regardless of its funding mechanism. And AFBF Chief Economist Bob Young echoed the assessment of Buis on the farm bill's funding language.

"If you wanted to provide an extra $2.5 to $3 billion for energy, if you wanted to provide another $4 or $5 billion for nutrition programs, then, you know, you've got to go get the money some place," Young explained.

And not all Republicans voted against the House farm bill. 19 crossed party lines to support the measure, including Nebraska 3rd District Republican Adrian Smith. Smith told Brownfield he did so, in large measure, because his constituents wanted him to. And according to Smith, it’s time for lawmakers to put the controversy about the farm bill's funding mechanism behind them.

"I think that it's time to move forward," Smith said. "Time will tell with the Conference Committee - chances are they might strike that provision," he added. "Chances are, the farm bill will end up quite different than how it stands right now."
In fact, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin has already suggested that will be the case. Harkin issued a statement Friday afternoon which said in part that the House version of the farm bill "did serious damage to conservation," damage Harkin promised to fix.

"I am hopeful the Senate can do a better job to fund investments in conservation that will allow us to grow crops that represent the next generation of energy production, like cellulose," the Harkin statement said.

As for the Bush administration, U.S. Ag Secretary Mike Johanns made clear during an appearance Friday at the National Press Club that the version of the farm bill passed by the House is unacceptable. But Johanns also vowed to work with the Senate Agriculture Committee to secure the changes to the legislation he believes are necessary.

"I welcome the opportunity to continue a dialog that has already begun with the Senate Agriculture Committee in a very bipartisan way," Johanns said.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
R-CALF: House Farm Bill Fails to Address Needed Cattle Market Reforms

7/28/2007 5:22:00 AM


R-CALF: House Farm Bill Fails to Address Needed Cattle Market Reforms

Washington, D.C. – Friday afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives approved its version of the 2007 Farm Bill, and while there was positive development on country-of-origin labeling, R-CALF USA believes Representatives could have done more for the U.S. cattle industry.

"We’re disappointed that the House version of the Farm Bill didn’t include any measures to limit captive supplies, which just allows meatpackers the continued ability to manipulate the domestic cattle market," said R-CALF USA Vice President/Region II Director Randy Stevenson, who also chairs the group’s marketing committee.

"We’re also disappointed there was no language to limit packer ownership of cattle, and the House version didn’t include essential language to update and strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA)," Stevenson pointed out.

R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz said he is glad to see that country-of-origin labeling (COOL) will finally take effect.

"R-CALF is pleased with the outcome of COOL legislation, which will move us closer to implementation and which also lessens the possibility that USDA will again try to undermine the law," Schultz said.

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said the group was disappointed to learn that House rules prevented Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., from introducing her amendment to ban cattle and beef imports from countries with ongoing problems with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

"Cubin’s amendment would minimize food safety risks from BSE-affected countries and strengthen U.S. import restrictions, which would boost confidence among U.S. export customers," Bullard said. "Our export customers have imposed some very stringent restrictions on U.S. beef exports, not because we have a continuing BSE problem, but rather because we continue to import the BSE problem into this country from Canada.

"R-CALF will immediately work to see if we can get this amendment included in the Senate version of the Farm Bill, and work to have it as a stand-alone piece of legislation in the U.S. House," Bullard noted. "This is a very important issue to the U.S. cattle industry, so we’re going to pursue it aggressively, as our members have directed us to."
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Here's an aritcle from the produce side - I hadn't heard about #4 but Gov. Blunt of MO had said about six months ago that he was wanting to get started a MO Beef label to promote MO beef.

Here's the link: http://freshtalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/cool-agreement.html

Wednesday, July 25, 2007
COOL agreement

TK: From United/PMA, this joint announcement breaks the latest on COOL negotiations. Not the industry's earlier compromise, but a much better mandatory law than was in place before.

Industry Negotiates Key Improvements to COOL in U.S. House Farm Bill
Country of Origin Labeling to Go Into Effect September 30, 2008

As part of the 2007 Farm Bill to be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives tomorrow, the produce, meat and retail industries have negotiated important improvements to reduce the regulatory burden and cost of the country of origin law now on the books.

United Fresh and PMA have worked together for the past several years with a coalition of produce associations and the retail supermarket industry to find common ground that would deliver country of origin information to consumers, without the burden of the law first passed in 2002. Implementation of that law had been delayed twice by Congress based on industry concerns about its unintended consequences and cost. In September 2006, these organizations reached a compromise agreement that we have advanced with Members of Congress.

Since that time, the environment to consider country of origin labeling has changed significantly, fueled by recent food safety issues such as the Chinese import situation. Many key members of Congress have made known that they would not allow further delay in the 2002 law, and instead urged all parties to negotiate any improvements that they felt needed in the law. Their bottom line was that mandatory COOL for meat and produce would go into effect on September 30, 2008, but they were willing to consider improvements in the law if consumer groups, meat and produce suppliers, and retailers could agree.

With the oversight of the House Agriculture Committee, representatives of the meat, produce, and retail industries have negotiated over the past week a series of compromises with consumer and farm groups. Yesterday, a number of produce stakeholder organizations reviewed the proposed changes to the law and endorsed an agreement to move forward with mandatory COOL with the following changes that will be included in the Farm Bill:

1. Significantly reduced penalties for mistakes in labeling at point of purchase, including a “good faith” standard that reduces the liability for retailers unless shown to be disregarding or willfully violating the law. This helps ease the burden on retailers, so long as they are working to comply with the law. Note that produce suppliers must provide country of origin information to retailers, and the truthfulness of that declaration is still subject to PACA law.
2. Retailers would not be liable for misinformation provided by suppliers, which should eliminate the need for retailers to audit their suppliers to ensure compliance.

3. No new record-keeping. Normal records kept in the regular course of doing business are sufficient to comply with the law. This is an important relief from the original law that threatened an extreme cost burden on the total supply chain.

4. A specific provision to allow labeling of a U.S. State, region or locality in which a product is produced to meet label standards as product of U.S. Therefore, a descriptor such as Minnesota Grown or Pride of New York would be sufficient labeling to comply with law. Produce suppliers and retailers across the industry strongly advocated for this change due to the many marketing programs and state/regional affiliations currently appearing in produce labeling.

With these provisions agreed to through tough negotiations with farm and consumer groups under the direct supervision of Congressional leaders, our associations will support these changes throughout Farm Bill consideration. Of course these changes are not law until finally passed by Congress and signed by the President which we expect to occur by the end of the year. But, given the current state of negotiation on these issues, all parties believe these agreements are likely to hold through the process.

Because our associations have worked closely on this issue for several years, we are issuing this joint information alert to members of both associations. We would like to publicly acknowledge the work of United Fresh in negotiating these agreements with other stakeholders in Washington, DC, and PMA in assessing the impact of various specific proposals considered throughout the process. In addition, we would like to thank the many produce associations and the Food Marketing Institute for working together to find common ground on what has been one of the more contentious issues facing the produce supply chain in many years. The next step will be to focus on the regulatory process at USDA as the Department develops the “rules of the road” to implement COOL in a way that provides useful information to consumers with minimal cost and negative impact on the total produce supply chain.


Tom Stenzel
President - United Fresh Produce Association

Bryan Silbermann
President
Produce Marketing Association
 

PORKER

Well-known member
MoGal, your state should do the same as South Dakota did on Beef.Gov. Blunt of MO had said about six months ago that he was wanting to get started a MO Beef label to promote MO beef
 
Top