Ag Retailers Association

Trump’s Executive Order on Fertilizer: Industry and Retailers Respond

Fri, 07 Mar 2025 19:24:07 GMT

President Trump has signed an executive order allowing products traded under the USMCA to be outside of the 25% tariffs previously announced. Additionally and specifically, Canadian potash imports into the U.S. will be subject to a reduced import tariff of 10%.

Both The Fertilizer Institute and The Agriculture Retailers Association issued reactions applauding the special attention to fertilizer trade across North America.

“President Trump has long been supportive of U.S. farmers and rural communities,” said TFI President and CEO Corey Rosenbusch. “As the important spring planting season kicks off on farms around the country, the President’s recognition of the critical nature of fertilizers will ensure growers have access to the vital crop nutrients that make possible bountiful harvests and profitable grower operations. We look forward to continuing our work with the Administration to make the U.S. fertilizer industry and American agriculture the most productive in the world.”

CEO Daren Coppock expressed gratitude to the Trump administration for hearing the concerns of agriculture and granting the tariff reduction on imported potash.

“Given that the United States sources over 85% of its potash from Canada, this exemption is crucial to prevent supply disruptions and cost increases that could adversely affect farmers nationwide,” he said. “Canadian potash, a vital nutrient for U.S. crop production, plays an indispensable role in ensuring robust crop yields and maintaining the competitiveness of American agriculture. While this reduction will ease access to potash, if other imported fertilizer products remain subject to tariffs, those costs will be passed on to growers.

Both associations highlight how the economic impact of this executive order on fertilizer will help maintain the global competitiveness of U.S. farmers, strengthen rural economies and keep food prices in check.

Sec. Brooke Rollins posted on X how this action on fertilizer was in recognition of the President’s focus on farmers.

Thank you, Mr. President! @POTUS’ decision to grant a lower 10% tariff on any potash imported from Canada or Mexico that falls outside the USMCA preference is strategic. It will keep negotiations on track and ensure farmers can buy much needed fertilizer at the lowest price…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) March 6, 2025

The Scoop Podcast: Insights For The Future of Ag Trade With Former Ambassador Terry Branstad

Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:27:38 GMT

Ambassador Terry Branstad was the first U.S. state governor to host Xi Jinping in 1985, so he carries the unique distinction of being called an “old friend” by the Chinese leader as well as a friend to President Donald Trump.

He’s also the longest serving governor in U.S. history having had two periods as Iowa governor (1983 to 1999 and 2011 to 2015).

“I was the first American governor that hosted Xi Jinping when he was just a young party leader from our sister state, Hubei province in China,” Branstad says. “So I’m one of the few people in the world that can say I’m a friend of Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping calls me an old friend because we treated him so well when he came Iowa in 1985.”

As such, Branstad has the one-of-a-kind perspective on how trade will evolve in the coming years with the second term for President Trump. He shared more on The Scoop Podcast.

“Things are developing pretty fast, and the appointments are being made, but I think Trump has really learned from his first-term experience that ‘Never Trumpers’ are gone,” Branstad says. “He’s really looking for people that are loyal and competent, and I’m very hopeful that we’re going to see some dramatic changes that’s going to help make America great again and help improve income for American workers and income for American farmers.”

Branstad himself is proud to mention the background of being an Iowa farm kid.

“As is the case in agriculture, we have ups and downs. We’ve had some pretty good years, and now we have some challenging times,” he says.

Branstad highlights how “for a trade deal to be good, it needs to be a win-win for both sides.” He offers some trade “wins” with the Phase One agreement.

“We were able to, over several years, negotiate the Phase One trade agreement, which led to dramatic increases in exports, especially agriculture exports to China,” he says. “I’m hopeful that this time around, Trump will look at the same thing. And I think one of the things he’s trying to do is encouraging some of these foreign companies and foreign countries to look at investing and creating jobs in the United States.”

He shares more insights about the future of trade and its effects on the agricultural industry in this episode of The Scoop Podcast.

To hear even more, attend the ARA Conference and Expo, Dec. 3 to 5 in Houston where Branstad will be giving a fireside chat.

How To Elevate Agriculture: Ag Retailer Steps Up On The TEDx Stage

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:04:44 GMT

A man who is no stranger to advocacy was on a mission. Mike Twining has been working toward taking a fact-based appeal to the stage of TEDx—the primetime way of sharing big ideas with potentially a big audience for big impact.

This spring, mission accomplished . Twining spoke at a TEDx event hosted by Grand Canyon University and delivered his talk “Saving the Planet With Your Food Choices.”

In his day job, Twining is vice president of sales and marketing at Willard Agri-Service, and for the past 40 years, he’s worked side by side with crop consultants to help farmers make the best decisions agronomically, environmentally and economically. Twining has taken on leadership roles within the Agricultural Retailers Association and stepped up to the call when needed, so much so that ARA awarded him the Excellent in Advocacy Award just last year.

But the calling to take his message to TEDx stage was greater than any doubts that surfaced about being in a room that may not include a single other person familiar with commercial agriculture.

“I hope my ideas spark curiosity and conversation beyond the standard sound bites we all hear about how our food is raised,” Twining says. “It’s easy sometimes to think that we have all the information, but still draw the wrong conclusion. Agriculture is one of the few industries that can scale globally in the next decade to meaningfully reduce climate change.”

He proposes there are three topics around food products we are consistently misled as consumers:

Organics
Genetically modified organisms
Glyphosate

And he proposes how consumers can incentive solutions with food buying purchases to give farmers the right tools and incentives.

The full presentation is available here (and it’s a tight 12 minutes.)

Ag’s Big Break With Fishermen’s Win at Supreme Court

Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:53:27 GMT

Fish stories are hard enough to believe, but even harder when their origin hails from the capital of tall tales and broken promises — aka Washington D.C.

But this time, this fish story is true.

These fishermen didn’t just tell their story down at the local pubs, coffee shops or Sunday school class, they told it in front of the nine justices at the highest court in the land — the Supreme Court. In the end, their story may have totally upended how business is done in our nation’s capital and how business is done in almost every industry across the entire nation, including agriculture.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff fishermen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning the longstanding Chevron deference — a legal precedent that gave federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting congressional statutes. Specifically in this case it limited the authority of NOAA Fisheries, a government agency, to implement regulations without clear guidance from lawmakers.

In early 2020, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided those who operate herring boats were required to pay for the federal monitors who periodically ride along during fishing trips. Such monitors were put in place to make sure fish catch limits were not being exceeded and fishing methods were practiced in compliance with regulations.

The rub that these fishermen had was not necessarily the presence of such monitors aboard their ships. Rather it was the fact that government agency, NOAA, mandated the fishermen were on the hook for paying for the monitors. In essence, it was the bureaucratic equivalent of paying the fox to guard your own henhouse.

This ruling by the Supreme Court throws a wet blanket on how government agencies have operated for the past 40 years.

Predictably, bureaucrats are now playing the Chicken Little card saying the sky will fall, rivers will turn red, and the skies will turn black. Meanwhile, businesses and many average joes are celebrating the ruling saying maybe – just maybe –a little common sense has been restored in how our lives and businesses are regulated on a daily basis.

The Ripple Effect
Could this be the nudge needed so we can start to have some truly honest two-sided discussions about things like gas stoves, gasoline cars, and burping cows before we hastily put everything we know out to pasture? Maybe the world, in which every day is a new day with another new regulation, will finally stop spinning or at least slow down.

There is no doubt the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine will certainly clip the powers of federal agencies to issue regulations. This will most heavily impact agriculture when it comes to federal regulations surrounding food and drug safety, environmental and welfare standards. The real world impact at the agency level is that these regulations will be harder to create and enforce, affecting progressive efforts in specific areas like agriculture runoff, wetland protection, climate, and animal treatment guidelines.

The river of tears currently being shed by the regulatory class and their enablers was essentially self-inflicted. If they were humble enough to look at themselves in a mirror, they might realize that. The pendulum of power had swung too far in their direction because, by default, they were gifted broad powers to interpret the vague laws that Congress failed to detail from the beginning. You know the saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

As much as it may look like the Supreme Court knocked regulatory agencies down a couple of notches, it exposed the real underlying issue, Congress is lazy when it comes to writing its own laws. It has probably only gotten worse over the past 40 years since the Chevron Doctrine has been in place.

Who can forget the infamous words of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on the eve of the House of Representatives vote on health care reform (aka Obamacare) back in March of 2010? “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” Pelosi said. That pretty much sums up how Congress has operated during most of our adult lifetime. At least six justices said it was time for lawmakers to grow up and start doing their job.

What This Means For Ag
Many agriculture trade groups hailed the decision as a clear victory. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) all released statements in support of the decision.

“For decades, Congress has passed vague laws and left it to federal agencies and the courts to figure out how to implement them,” AFBF’s President Zippy Duvall said in a response to the ruling. “AFBF has argued on behalf of farmers who are caught in a regulatory back and forth when administrations change the rules based on political priorities instead of relying on the legislative process. We are pleased the Court heard those concerns.”

Incidentally, one of the first significant pieces of agriculture legislation that Congress may get to try its new ‘big boy pants’ on is the much delayed farm bill. The new rules will push the legislative bodies to be much more detailed and elaborate in the legislation in order to avoid judicial challenges and ensure regulators can actually implement the key provisions of the bill.

The much anticipated farm bill is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the end of Chevron deference could possibly affect the future of the agriculture industry in this country.

For example, this could thwart the Biden Administration’s EPA’s unwavering push to regulate the waters of the U.S — down to the sometimes dry creek running through your back 40. This ruling essentially puts the EPA up a creek without a paddle.

There are hundreds, possibly thousands more examples of regulatory overreach gone wild among dozens of federal agencies. Depending on what we do in the diverse industry of agriculture, we all could easily name off our top regulatory thorns in our sides. This ruling certainly will ease that pain in the future, but don’t expect smooth sailing from this point forward.

Those in power don’t give it up willingly, so you can bet the fight is on. Experts predict farmers may experience less regulatory burden in the future, but it will lead to more direct legal challenges for them in court. You can also bet that all those progressive outside influencers who helped shape so many head scratching regulations over the past 40 years, are now moving across the street to help Congress put such nonsense down in writing from the get go.

For now, enjoy this David vs. Goliath story, as this one was sweet.

When social justice cheerleader publications like Teen Vogue and formidable environmental powerhouses like the Natural Resources Defense Council are putting out head exploding rants after the ruling, you know you and your industry was on the right side of providence.

Here’s a tip of the cap, to some scrappy East Coast fishermen. Well done!
_____________________________________________________________________________
Related Stories:
How the Supreme Court’s Big Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine Could Impact Agriculture
ARA Deems Supreme Court Decision Reversing Chevron Defense as Good News for Ag Retail

Are You Disposing Pesticides Properly? Here’s How to Know

Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:57:35 GMT

As you prepare to spray fields this spring, consider these tips to ensure you’re complying with federal regulations when it comes to pesticide disposal.

In a recent webinar held by the Agricultural Retailers Association, Carlye Patterson, associate at Faegre Drinker law firm in Des Moines, shared anyone disposing pesticides needs to check the instructions on the pesticide label, state and local laws, and the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, she says the first step to proper disposal begins before the pesticide is even used.

“The user needs to aim to only mix enough pesticide for the job,” Patterson says. “Then, if there is any extra product they can’t use or can’t be mixed into the sprayer, the product needs to be stored according to regulations.”

Disposal Programs
If you are storing leftover, unused pesticides, Patterson shares one option for disposal is to find a local waste management program.

“Each state actually has its own Clean Sweep program which will dispose of the pesticides for farmers and commercial users,” she says.

Because these programs vary state to state, The Pesticide Stewardship Alliance has created a database on its website with the necessary information for each program – including who to contact, who can participate, and what’s eligible.

It’s important to note that according to the EPA, farmers and commercial users generally cannot dispose of pesticides in household hazardous waste programs that may be offered outside of Clean Sweep.

Container Disposal
Pesticide containers have different regulations for disposal than the pesticides themselves.

Patterson says depending on the type of container, one of two methods can typically be used to prepare it for recycling and disposal.

“Triple rinsing involves flushing the container three times and pouring the rinse water into your applicator tank and induction cone,” she says. “Pressure rinse, on the other hand, is for plastic containers. It has a special nozzle, and it punctures the container and the rinse water goes into the applicator tank.”

The Pesticide Stewardship Alliance also recommends rinsing containers as soon as they are emptied. They warn leaving the container too long without rinsing will lead to dried residue that is nearly impossible to clean.

Utah CCA Named Certified Crop Advisor Conservationist of the Year

Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:27:04 GMT

This year’s Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) Conservationist of the Year Award has been given to Russell Taylor.

Taylor resides in Emery, Utah and is the vice president of Live Earth Products , which mines and manufactures humic acid and fulvic acid-based products. He has been a crop advisor for 24 years and part of the CCA program for 10 years.

Through his work, Taylor has focused on being an advocate for conservation practices in agriculture – working with several different organizations to change laws and draft language for the farm bill.

“Conservation is more than working in the field,” he says. “Conservation is also reshaping the rules that prevent farmers from accessing products and information that aid conservation. Getting CCAs and researchers’ expanded knowledge is essential to accomplish our goal of helping farmers.”

The CCA Conservationist of the Year Award is designed to recognize a certified crop advisor who delivers exceptional conservation advice and results, customer service, innovation, and leadership. This year’s award is supported by USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), American Society of Agronomy, CropLife America, Crop Science Society of America, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Soil Science Society of America, and The Fertilizer Institute.

The award is administered by the American Society of Agronomy, and Taylor was recently recognized during a ceremony hosted by USDA in Washington, D.C.

“I’d like to express my deepest gratitude for the honor of receiving this award,” Taylor says. “The human population is anticipated to double in the next 30 years. Growing food and feeding the human population can only be done by utilizing products that help to produce more food using the same amount of resources. Our company is focused on improving soils to help make more efficient use of applied water and fertilizer. This includes increasing access to innovative products that enhance soil health and conserve agricultural inputs. I’m excited to continue my commitment to conservation to pursue a greener and more sustainable tomorrow.”

Biden's Environmental Plans Upended by the Senate's Latest Vote

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

On Thursday, the Senate passed a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to put a stop to any changes the Biden administration might make to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Congressional Review Act was established in 1996 as a way for Congress to reverse rules created by federal agencies.

Why Does this Matter to Ag?

NEPA, delegated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) , contains elements of environmental legislation—including the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act —that ultimately outlines what stake and duty federal agencies have in implementing the U.S.’s environmental legislation.

According to the White House the CEQ advises the President and develops policies on:
1. Climate change
2. Environmental justice
3. Federal sustainability
4. Public lands
5. Oceans
6. Wildlife Conservation

The Congressional Review Act, exercised by the Senate on Thursday, is an avenue to “claw back” on the Biden administration’s environmental permitting rules (NEPA), according to Jim Wiesemeyer, ProFarmer policy analyst.

What’s the Story on NEPA?

First developed in 1971 and finally issued as regulation in 1978, NEPA guidelines were in use, untouched, for more than 40 years until “wholesale” revisions took place in 2020 under the Trump administration, according to CEQ.

This year, CEQ reviewed the changes made in 2020 and decided on a phased approach to amending the NEPA regulations. CEQ issued the Phase 1 Final Rule in 2022, which restored regulatory provisions to their status prior to the 2020 amendments.

“The rule finalizes a narrow set of changes to generally restore regulatory provisions that were in effect for decades before the 2020 rule modified them for the first time, the CEQ outlined on its website. “The final rule changes better align the NEPA regulations with CEQ and agency expertise, as well as NEPA’s statutory goals and purpose of promoting sound decisions informed by science.”

But CEQ’s Final Rule didn’t sit well with some legislative officials, leading to roadblocks from the Senate.

Next Steps for NEPA

The Senate agreed on Thursday to put NEPA under lock and key, out of CEQ’s hands. However, the House will have to cast their own vote to decide the fate of NEPA.

Wiesemeyer feels the same disapproval may not carry throughout Congress, as NEPA “faces long odds against Democrats’ majority in the House.”

More on ag policy:
John Phipps: Is the Outrage By Dutch Farmers Now Being Heard by the World Enough to Prevent Policy Changes?
John Dillard: Supreme Court Fences In Federal Agencies (A Little)
China’s Latest Land Purchase Could Pose Major U.S. Security Risk

Vilsack Shares Top Three Priorities

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:28:28 GMT

It’s been four weeks since the New Year ball dropped in Times Square. We’ve heard some buzzing from Capitol Hill but wager there is more happening than what we are hearing.

Tom Vilsack, USDA Secretary of Agriculture, recently joined Chip Flory on AgriTalk to provide an update on his latest work in farm country in 2022.

“Rural Extraction Economy”

Vilsack says there is a valuable proposition found in rural places—a concept he has coined rural extraction economy.

“We take things like crops and minerals off the land—we extract them. We transport these goods to someplace else where value is added, wealth and jobs are created

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack says materials like crops and minerals are extracted from the land and transported to another location where value, wealth and jobs are created. He says this is part of what he further describes as a circular economy.

“Local and regional food systems have the ability to take cattle and hogs that are being produced and, instead of trucking them hundreds of miles to get them processed—allowing a large, multinational company to benefit—we create a farmer-owned cooperative or processing facility that allows producer to profit from not only production, but also processing,” says Vilsack. “It’s a circular economy that stays in the community.”

COVID-19 Relief Payments

In 2021, the USDA promised $10 billion in COVID-19 and disaster aid payments for producers. Of the $10 billion, $750,000 was set aside for livestock. Vilsack says these payments have not been made to producers because his department is working to “simplify the payment process” by looking at previous relief payments to decide on a basis.

“A percentage of those basis payments will be made quickly—hopefully by this spring,” says Vilsack. “Then we’ll set up a second payment structure for those who didn’t make a claim.”

Vilsack hopes to have this system established and moving funds no later than spring 2022.

Trade

Earlier this month, Vilsack and Trade Ambassador Katherine Tai announced the Indian government has agreed to allow imports of U.S. pork and pork products into India.

Vilsack says the new opportunity marks the culmination of nearly two decades of work to gain market access for U.S. pork to India – and it signals “positive movement” in U.S.-India trade relations.

The revitalization of the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum coupled with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and Vietnam’s reduction in tariffs are what Vilsack attributes to record export numbers.

Vilsack also hinted there is a new trade position to be filled at the USDA. While he didn’t share the candidates name, Vilsack says the role will require an “aggressive effort” to measure up to another projected record export year.

Senate Ag Committee Approves Vilsack Confirmation for USDA

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:26:30 GMT

Tom Vilsack enjoyed bipartisan support in his Senate Agriculture Committee confirmation hearing Tuesday as he seeks to return to USDA. The committee voted unanimously to recommend his confirmation as USDA Secretary to the full Senate.

Vilsack noted the unusual date of his confirmation hearing paired with his return to the agency he helmed for all eight years of Barrack Obama’s administration.

“It’s not lost on me, ironically, that this is Groundhog’s Day, and I realized that I’m back again,” Vilsack observed. “But I also realized that this is a fundamentally different time, and I am a different person, and it is a different department, and I think we have to recognize that going into this process.”

Vilsack appeared via video conference following COVID-19 restrictions, and the hearing was jointly chaired by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.) as the Senate has not yet approved rules for operating under a 50-50 split.

Vilsack addressed a broad range of issues during the hearing from coronavirus and climate change to Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and biofuels. Following are key quotes from Vilsack from the hearing on key agricultural issues:

Coronavirus recovery: “Clearly, COVID is on the minds of everyone, as it should be, and the Department of Agriculture has responsibility to aggressively promote the nutrition assistance that you all have provided, and they have begun to do that in the last week, 10 days. We also have to review the additional relief that’s been ordered by Congress and try to get that into the hands of farmers, ranchers, producers and those in rural America as quickly, as efficiently, as effectively as possible. We need to make sure that our workers are essential workers on the line in the farm fields in processing facilities and alike are protected and recognized as the essential workers they are. And we certainly need to work collaboratively with Congress and others to build back the real economy in better shape than it was before the COVID crisis.”

Addressing climate change: Vilsack said a number of climate priorities included in a bill sponsored by Stabenow and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) could be implemented administratively.

“For example, putting together an advisory group of farmers that would give us a better understanding and appreciation of how to structure a carbon sequestration or carbon bank effort, making sure that we can, in fact, accurately measure and quantify the results that can be obtained by farmers. Making sure that the benefits of whatever program we devise and develop accrue to the benefit of farmers and not necessarily to third parties. Making sure that we promote the development of ecosystem markets to create those revenue sources for farmers. Making sure that our conservation programs are structured and designed in a way that encourage and incent the kinds of activities we know make a difference. Our soil is precious, we need to make sure we’re investing in soil health, and we also frankly need to up our game on research. There are ways in which root systems of crops can potentially be designed in a way that will sequester more carbon. We ought to be exploring that, we ought to be looking at ways in which we can increase market opportunities for greater storage. I think agriculture is probably the first and best way to begin getting some wins in this climate area. I think, farmers are prepared for it, farmers are anxious to do it, if it’s voluntary, if it’s market based, if it’s incentive based. I think you will see farmers, ranchers and producers cooperate extensively.”

On discrimination and equity of access: “We need to fully, deeply and completely address the long standing inequities, unfairness and discrimination that has been the history of USDA programs for far too long to a future where all are treated equitably and fairly, where there is zero tolerance for discrimination, where programs actually open up opportunity for all who need help and lift the burden of persistent poverty for those most in need.”

On using the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to fund climate initiatives: “The first responsibility of the Commodity Credit Corporation is to make sure that the Farm Bill programs are adequately, fully and kindly funded. Having said that, to the extent that that vehicle is available without compromising the ability to fund the Farm Bill programs, it is a great tool for us to create the kind of structure that will inform future farm bills about what will encourage carbon sequestration, what will encourage precision agriculture, what will encourage soil health and regenerative agricultural practices. And to that extent to the extent that there are resources available, I would hope that you all would provide me the opportunity to utilize that in a way, again, that doesn’t compromise the Farm Bill programs, but advances and creates additional markets. Secretary Purdue had great flexibility, appropriately so, under the current COVID situation, I would ask for the opportunity to use that flexibility appropriately, effectively and smartly to create the opportunity for you as you put together the next farm bill to understand what works and what would be helpful in terms of programs.”

Biofuels: “We need to have the USDA Secretary work closely with his or her partner at EPA to make sure that folks at EPA fully understand or appreciate the benefits of this industry in terms of jobs, in terms of the environment, in terms of lifecycle analysis. This industry has made great strides in becoming much more environmentally friendly than it was at the beginning, and sometimes I fear that we were still working off of old research. New research would indicate that this is an industry that is providing environmental benefits: cleaner air, for example. And making sure that as they make decisions relative to the Renewable Fuel Standard that they are consistent, that they are consistent with the rule, they’re consistent with the law. The waiver system was designed for small refineries that were having trouble and difficulty. It was not designed for large scale refineries that are owned by Exxon and Chevron to receive a waiver. So I would hope, and will certainly strongly urge EPA to go back to a day when those waivers are very, very, very infrequently granted. And then finally I think there’s a way in which we can utilize USDA resources, and work with Congress to increase those resources, to build out the infrastructure to make it easier for higher blends to be available to consumers. Why? Because at the end of the day, consumers benefit. They have less expensive fuel, they have a cleaner burning fuel, they have a fuel that’s better for the environment.”

On Coronavirus Food Assistance Program funds currently being reviewed by the administration: “I hope that you understand and appreciate the fact that any new administration needs to have an opportunity to fully understand or appreciate exactly what is taking place with reference to what commitments have been made, what commitments have already been embraced. We just simply need time to have a better understanding of where that is. It is not designed for anything other than to give me, if I’m confirmed, a better sense of that program. Obviously, we’re going to follow the directives of Congress, I mean that’s reasonable and appropriate and that’s the way it should operate. I would say that we are going to continue to look for ways in which the tools that USDA has can be utilized in the best possible way to provide the assistance that people need to help build the economy back better, to expand opportunities when and if that presents itself, but if there’s directive from Congress will obviously follow it.”

Livestock price transparency: “There’s no question we need to strengthen the laws that are designed to create more openness and more transparency and more price discovery. No question about that. But that’s not enough. I think we need alternative processing opportunities, not just from the competitive standpoint but also from a resilience standpoint. We found that when one or two processing facilities shut down during COVID, that it just created havoc in the market. We can’t have that. We have to have a more resilient food system and that, in my view, requires us to look at ways in which we can incent and encourage more processing facilities.”

On Country of Origin Labeling: “We [the Obama Administration] made every concerted effort to try to create better transparency, better information for consumers, because we understand and appreciate that consumers want to know where their food comes from. They want to know when they’re buying U.S. or when they’re buying something from someplace else. We attempted on three occasions to sort of strengthen the Country of Origin Labeling, unsuccessfully because of the WTO challenges by our Canadian friends, which would have resulted obviously in retaliation. I am absolutely willing to listen to anybody and everybody who’s got an idea about how we can circumvent, or how we can get to a point where the WTO doesn’t necessarily slap it down. That creates retaliatory impacts on American agriculture. I’m frank to say I need help in that respect. We can ignore the WTO, but then we’ve got the retaliation and then, you know, that’s just not a good thing.”

Homeland Security Recognizes Agriculture as Critical Industry

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:36 GMT

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidance on Thursday on critical industry workforce that should continue as the country addresses and responds to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. U.S. food and agriculture was included among 16 critical industries.

“If you work in a critical infrastructure industry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security, such as healthcare services and pharmaceutical and food supply, you have a special responsibility to maintain your normal work schedule,” the guidance states.

The list of sectors and identified essential critical infrastructure workers are an initial recommended set by DHS and are intended to be overly inclusive, reflecting the diversity of industries across the U.S.

Specifically, DHS recognized these food and agriculture roles as critical:

• Animal agriculture workers to include those employed in veterinary health; manufacturing and distribution of animal medical materials, animal vaccines, animal drugs, feed ingredients, feed, and bedding, etc.; transportation of live animals, animal medical materials; transportation of deceased animals for disposal; raising of animals for food; animal production operations; slaughter and packing plants and associated regulatory and government workforce

• Farm workers to include those employed in animal food, feed, and ingredient production, packaging, and distribution; manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of veterinary drugs; truck delivery and transport; farm and fishery labor needed to produce our food supply domestically

• Farm workers and support service workers to include those who field crops; commodity inspection; fuel ethanol facilities; storage facilities; and other agricultural inputs

• Workers supporting groceries, pharmacies and other retail that sells food and beverage products

• Restaurant carry-out and quick serve food operations - Carry-out and delivery food employees

• Food manufacturer employees and their supplier employees—to include those employed in food processing (packers, meat processing, cheese plants, milk plants, produce, etc.) facilities; livestock, poultry, seafood slaughter facilities; pet and animal feed processing facilities; human food facilities producing by-products for animal food; beverage production facilities; and the production of food packaging

• Employees and firms supporting food, feed, and beverage distribution, including warehouse workers, vendor-managed inventory controllers and blockchain managers

• Workers supporting the sanitation of all food manufacturing processes and operations from wholesale to retail

• Company cafeterias - in-plant cafeterias used to feed employees

• Workers in food testing labs in private industries and in institutions of higher education

• Workers essential for assistance programs and government payments

• Employees of companies engaged in the production of chemicals, medicines, vaccines, and other substances used by the food and agriculture industry, including pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, minerals, enrichments, and other agricultural production aids

• Workers who support the manufacture and distribution of forest products, including, but not limited to timber, paper, and other wood products

• Employees engaged in the manufacture and maintenance of equipment and other infrastructure necessary to agricultural production and distribution

“We thank DHS for acknowledging the vital role that pork producers play in helping to feed consumers here at home and around the globe with a high-quality, affordable protein,” says National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) President Howard “A.V.” Roth. “We recognize that states and local governments are working hard to ensure operational continuity. As part of that effort, we urge state and local governments to swiftly follow and implement this federal directive. We need to ensure there is a continuous and uninterrupted supply of pork to America’s kitchen tables.”

The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) President and CEO Corey Rosenbusch applauded DHS for listing fertilizer employees as essential and the fertilizer industry as one of the nation’s critical infrastructure industries.

“Fertilizer is responsible for 50% of crop yields and is essential to our nation’s agricultural production and food supply,” Rosenbusch says. “We thank the Trump administration for recognizing the critical role fertilizer plays in feeding our nation and the world.”

Other areas deemed as critical industries include healthcare and public health; emergency services; energy; water; nuclear reactors, materials and waste; transportation systems; dams; communications; information technology; government facilities; commercial facilities; critical manufacturing; financial; chemical; and defense industrial base.

Read more at agweb.com/coronavirus .

AgVote 2020: Farm Foundation Forum

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:22 GMT

AgDay’s Clinton Griffiths hosted a forum with representatives from both presidential campaigns. The forum was sponsored by the Farm Foundation. The two-hour discussion covered everything from trade, to ethanol and biofuels, to the future of farming. To watch the entire forum click here .

Farm Bureau Convention Goes Virtual Due to COVID

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:22 GMT

The American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) 102nd Annual Convention scheduled for January in San Diego will instead be a virtual event due to coronavirus restrictions.

The San Diego Convention Center, where the annual meeting was to be held Jan. 10-13, has cancelled all events through the end of January according to a Farm Bureau press release.

“Our top priority at every Farm Bureau gathering is the safety of our attendees and staff,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said. “While we are saddened to not meet in person for this convention, we are eager to bring this event safely to farm and ranch homes across the country and excited to offer the same top-level content our members have come to expect from our in-person events.”

The virtual annual convention will remain on the same dates and will be free to all attendees. The event will still include highlights such as the Ag Innovation Challenge, the Young Farmer and Rancher competitions and the Farm Dog of the Year announcement, according to the press release.

Registration details will be available later this year at the Farm Bureau website.

Rural Voters Reverse 2018 Blue Wave

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:15 GMT

The 2018 mid-term election saw a blue wave that strengthened democrat control of the House. Despite pollster speculation that the wave would continue into 2020, the scenario did not play out, with the GOP holding some key, targeted Senate races and making gains in the House. According to a key ag political consultant, those republican winners surfed a wave of large rural voter turnout.

“Democrats were not able to hold on,” says Karla Thieman of The Russell Group, a food and agriculture focused government affairs firm. “The 2018 wave that they were brought in on did not last this time. And the reason they weren’t able to get reelected is in large part, at least based on the data that I’ve seen, the number of rural voters who turned out for Donald Trump this time.”

Several key congressional races are still being decided, but at the moment, republicans appear to hold 48 Senate seats, democrats hold 45, according to AP. Republicans Susan Collins in Maine held on to her Maine seat and Thom Tillis in North Carolina is leading his race. The Michigan Senate race is tied.

Democrats picked up Senate Seats in Arizona with Mark Kelly and John Hickenlooper in Colorado. Republicans gained a seat in Alabama with Tommy Tuberville. Georgia, where there will be at least one runoff election in January, will be key to deciding final control of the Senate.

How will the next few days play out?

“My gut feeling is I think that Republicans are going to have the Senate by two seats,” Thieman predicts. “The house is going to be in a razor thin margin, Democrats will have it and Joe Biden will get to 270.”

Pulse: In Campaign Home Stretch, Trump Holds Lock on Farm Vote

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:15 GMT

With just days remaining in the 2020 presidential campaign, farmers and ranchers responding to the Farm Journal Pulse continue to show a strong preference for retaining President Donald Trump.

If the election was held today, who would you select for President of the United States? Donald Trump – 85% Joe Biden – 11% Undecided – 4% Responses: 1,311

The 85% of respondents voicing support for President Trump is in stark contrast to national polls showing, in some cases, a double-digit lead nationally for challenger Joe Biden. The current Real Clear Politics average of polls shows a 7.7 point advantage for Biden while the Five Thirty Eight average of polls pushes that to almost 9 points.

What’s driving the Trump support across farm country?

“The farmers I talk to keep saying it’s policy over personality,” says AgriTalk Radio host and Farm Journal Economist Chip Flory. “The tax policy, deregulation and conservative court picks are all top of mind. They aren’t thrilled with the tweets and other distractions, but the sense I get is that many farmers think a second Trump Administration will be better for their bottom line than a Biden Administration. And we can’t lose track of the fact that China is back and buying U.S. ag commodities.”

While the focus in farm country is policy, the national electorate is firmly focused on the personality side according to Jacob Rubashkin of Inside Elections.

“All this is impossible to separate from President Trump himself, right?” Rubashkin told Flory on AgriTalk. “I think that this election is far more about him than it is about Joe Biden. And for better or worse, the President hasn’t been able to kind of settle on any one specific message to run on in the last couple months of this race. He’s bounced from attack line to attack line.”

Early voting has been historic, Rubashkin notes that we will not know until election day if the pandemic merely pushed those who already intended to vote to cast their ballots early, or if the voting rolls were truly expanded. The coverage of early voting, however, could promote more votes that could impact down-ballot races in particular.

“It creates this kind of ongoing national story and societal impact, that every day there’s a new story about so such and such county where they’re experiencing record turnout, and the TV shows love to run the footage of these lines running around the block”, Rubushkin says. “This notion that everyone is going to vote, I think that’s really powerful. And you might even get this kind of snowball effect that folks who perhaps were not planning to vote, or it wasn’t as high on their list of priorities because they feel like everyone is doing it, they themselves go out and cast a ballot. For a lot of these down-ballot races, particularly in states like Texas where voter turnout typically is somewhat lower for Democrats, especially if they’re able to turn out these kind of lower propensity voters who are generally younger, less wealthy and less white, they could really win some surprising upsets at the state legislative and congressional level.”

Why the Next Congress Faces Major Hurdles Crafting the Next Farm Bill

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:15 GMT

Election results are still being certified in some states, but as the calendar inches toward 2021, Karla Thieman of the Russell Group says American voters sent a clear message this past election.

“It seems like one of the messages the voters sent was they actually do want a divided government, which would make one thing that people are wanting bipartisanship,” she says.

Even with a divided Congress, there are some issues Thieman thinks can still be worked through in the next Congress.

“Infrastructure is one area that a lot of people are hopeful there can be some bipartisan progress and agreement on,” says Thieman. “You might also see some other areas where you have some piecemeal approaches that deal with climate or other things.”

As Congress works to shape the future of agricultural policy with the next Farm Bill, three of the four leaders of the previous Farm Bill will be missing. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) will no longer be in Washington, D.C. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is the only leader remaining on either agriculture committees. And after multiple years of trade aid, followed by coronavirus relief, adhoc government relief has overshadowed farm bill programs.

“I think this next farm bill is going to be one of the most difficult to put together for that reason,” says Thieman. “There has been so much of the ad hoc spending way above farm bill levels. Losing Collin Peterson, Mike Conaway and Pat Roberts in totality, the three of them have 85 years of experience that you’re losing, and a good chunk of that was spent as Chair Ranking Member of the agriculture committees. That leaves Debbie Stabenow as the seasoned hand in shepherding this farm bill through the process.”

Thieman says not only will the new leadership need to work through what the upcoming farm bill will include, but members will be under increased pressure to reduce spending.

“The farm bill expires in the first year of the next Congress, so 2023, but I think they’re going to want to try to get a head start on it,” says Thieman. “The other dynamic that will make this next farm bill really difficult, I think, is that we are heading into a period of austerity. People are talking about the deficit and how high it is, and that we need to cut government spending. So, the spending levels that have been going out to farmers through the CCC, I just don’t see how that continues. And I don’t know how you write a farm bill to account for all of that spending, because that’s not captured in what’s called the baseline and the money that you have to spend in the farm bill.”

A newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture will be tasked with implementing a new farm bill. While several names have been tossed around as a possibility of the next Secretary of Agriculture, Thieman says two names have surfaced as front-runners.

“It seems like the two names that are talked about most frequently in D.C. are Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge,” she says. “But as my former boss Sec. Tom Vilsack reminded us, he went through this long process to get named.”

Thieman says considering the past paths of naming the next Secretary of Agriculture, she thinks it’s anyone’s guess who is tapped as Agriculture Secretary, but she expects the name to be announced within the next month.

Election Guide: What The Election Means for Farmers and Ranchers

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:15 GMT

Election Analysis: Time for Bi-Partisanship?
Karla Thieman of The Russell Group joins us to talk about the election, the need for bi-partisanship, chances of a new aid package before the new year, and potential USDA secretary candidates under a Biden administration.

Pro Farmer’s Jim Wiesemeyer talks changes to ag policy under Biden
The Packer’s Tom Karst visited Nov. 16 with Jim Wiesemeyer, policy analyst with Pro Farmer about the November elections and what is ahead for agricultural policy in a Democratic administration. Watch here.

Ag And Food Groups Unveil Climate Policy Platform
As former Vice President Joe Biden prepares to address climate change across every federal agency in a new administration, a coalition of ag, food and environment groups is laying out a framework for how agriculture can address climate and sustainability. Watch here.

All Eyes on Georgia
AgriTalk host Chip Flory, newsman Davis Michaelsen, Farm Journal news director John Herath, Pro Farmer policy analyst Jim Wiesemeyer, and Farm CPA Paul Neiffer discuss the presidential and senate runoff races and run through the list of potential Secretary of Agriculture candidates.

Signal to Noise: Post Election Analysis
In this week’s DC Signal to Noise Podcast, Pro Farmers’s Jim Wiesemeyer and John Herath of Farm Journal look at the key outcomes of the Nov. 3 election and how the election will impact agriculture. The analysis includes a look at who might fill key ag positions in a new administration and new Congress and the outlook for coronavirus aid in a lame duck session.

What a Biden Administration Ag Policy Might Look Like
Delaware secretary of agriculture Michael Scuse joins Chip Flory on AgriTalk to provide some insight into what a Biden administration ag policy might look like, including carbon sequestration and climate change. Listen here:

Who Will Biden Tap for Secretary of Agriculture?
Pro Farmer’s Jim Wiesemeyer offers insights on AgDay.

Does a split Congress reduce the chance of wholesale changes in tax policy?
AgriTalk’s Chip Flory discusses the future with Farm CPA Paul Neiffer.

Election 2020: Who Should Ag Choose?

Read commentaries from former USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack; Sid Miller, Texas Department of Agriculture; and from farmers on both sides. Check them out here.

After the Election: What’s Next for U.S. Agriculture?
Join Chip Flory, host of “AgriTalk,” as he leads a panel of farmers and ranchers in a discussion about the Nov. 3 election and its impact on U.S. agriculture.

Farm Journal Pulse Poll
In Campaign Home Stretch, Trump Holds Lock on Farm Vote. Read the complete analysis here .

Biden to Nominate Vilsack for Return to USDA

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:09 GMT

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Joe Biden plans to nominate former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for agriculture secretary, according to two sources familiar with the decision.

Vilsack, who led the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under former President Barack Obama, has a long relationship with Biden and served as a trusted adviser on rural issues during his campaign.

Vilsack’s return to the USDA is likely to be applauded by Midwestern states that produce the bulk of commodity crops like corn, soybeans and wheat, and prefer him to someone from another region of the country.

His spokeswoman, Regina Black, declined to comment “as an official announcement hasn’t been made.” The Biden transition office did not respond to a requests for comment on the choice.

The Farm Belt was battered by President Donald Trump’s trade war with China and waivers that exempted oil refiners from obligations to use corn-based ethanol. But Midwestern farmers also received an unprecedented amount of direct farm subsidies under Trump even as coronavirus stimulus for millions of other Americans stalled in Congress.

Vilsack is the chief executive of the U.S. Dairy Export Council and actively campaigned for Biden in farm states.

Iowa governor from 1999 to 2007, he is seen by establishment Democrats as a politically safe choice, largely because of his moderate politics, previous experience, and long-standing, friendly relationships with large-scale farmers.

A coalition of progressive food, farming and environmental advocacy groups promoted rival candidates.

Top among them was Democratic U.S. Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio, who would have been the first Black woman to fill the role and had been expected to increase the department’s focus on small farmers, global environmental changes, and racial and economic diversity.

Biden has selected Fudge to be secretary of housing and urban development, Politico reported.

What Vilsack’s Return to USDA Would Mean for U.S. Farmers and Ranchers

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:09 GMT

As Joe Biden continues to craft his cabinet, news surfaced Tuesday night that former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will leave the U.S. Dairy Export Council to lead USDA .

Farm Journal Washington correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer says if the news is made official, it won’t be the first time an Agriculture Secretary has served under more than one Administration. Jim Wilson served as Ag Secretary from 1897 to 1913 and did so under three Administrations. However, Wiesemeyer says Vilsack will make history in another way.

“I don’t think we’ve ever seen an Ag secretary come back after being gone, so that’s interesting,” Wiesemeyer says.

Biden is expected to confirm his USDA Secretary nomination later this week, but Wiesemeyer says consensus is building Vilsack will be tapped.

“He’s a known commodity and amongst the ag sector, who worries about everything, but they don’t have to worry about Vilsack,” he adds. “He’s a consensus builder. I think that’s what’s needed.”

Chuck Conner, who served as Deputy Secretary for the US Department of Agriculture before being named president and CEO of National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) in 2009, says agriculture is wading through intense uncertainty right now with coronavirus and other elements at play.

“Obviously coronavirus has thrown a whole new uncertainty on that as we are rapidly adjusting the way that we provide food to Americans in the midst of all that,” Conner says. “You couldn’t script any more uncertainty, and I think for farmers and rural Americans, another uncertainty was obviously government and the leadership of government.”

Conner says the possible appointment of Tom Vilsack as the next Agriculture Secretary removes another layer of uncertainty. While he’s served as president and CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council since 2017, he also worked directly with farm programs under the Obama Administration, with a deep understanding of row crops and USDA programs supporting farmers and ranchers.

“He’s a known entity,” Conner adds. “He’s a person who knows rural America. and I think that’s an uncertainty that we can sort of take off the table, if you will, to some extent and not have to deal with during these highly certain times. and you’ve got to believe that that’s a positive thing for farmers in rural America.”

Iowan Tom Vilsack has 8 yrs of experience leading the Dept of Agriculture. He also understands the importance of preserving the family farm & the significance of the biofuels industry
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) December 9, 2020

That known commodity aspect also received recognition from key members of Congress. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley tweeting out his approval Wednesday, saying Vilsack understands the importance of preserving the family farm, and the significance of the biofuels industry. Grassley’s approval is big, as he could be a key player in the approval of Vilsack in the Senate.

In addition to coronavirus response, Weisemeyer says another priority for the next Administration will directly tie into agriculture.

“Climate change is going to be the number one issue in his early years of the Administration,” he says. “Agriculture plays a big role in climate, as well as working with the EPA on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.”

Conner says based on the eight years Vilsack served as Agriculture Secretary under the Obama Administration, Vilsack proved he believes in science. Conner thinks that will be key in creating climate initiatives and priorities within agriculture.

“In the eight years that he was there, Tom Vilsack believed in science and believed in evaluating and government actions based upon the best available science,” says Conner. “That’s key in this climate debate, because obviously, there are circumstances where there’s a lot of hype and a lot of enthusiasm on issues that may not have a whole lot of science backing to them.”

Conner says his experience with Vilsack leads him to believe Vilsack will be passionate about climate change as Agriculture Secretary, but will use science to back up whatever path USDA takes.

National Farmers Union (NFU) issued a statement Tuesday nigh t after news about Vilsack’s possible appointment surfaced, saying, “After eight years leading USDA, Tom Vilsack has the necessary qualifications and experience to steer the agency through these turbulent times.”

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) president Zippy Duvall followed with a statement Wednesday applauding Vilsack on his ability to rise above partisanship to serve farmers and ranchers. Duvall went on to say, “Tom Vilsack understands that the agriculture sector is far more complex than most people understand. He believes in a ‘big tent’ philosophy that supports all types of production and understands the importance of respecting farmers and ranchers as partners worthy of support in the race to achieve sustainability goals.”

While Vilsack will work to shape future agriculture policy, he will also be tasked with possibly implementing the next Farm Bill. In addition to that, Conner says it will be interesting to see what direction Vilsack takes.

“We’re all sort of now evaluating what were the loose ends when he left office,” says Conner. “I think there’s a lot of issues out there relative to competition in the marketplace that were still pending when he left last time. It’ll be interesting to see if he picks up a lot of those sort of competitiveness issues, particularly in the meat sector that could very well resurface again, and we’ll be watching those to see which direction he may be headed on that.”

As agriculture awaits official word on leadership—and priorities—of the next USDA, the new Agriculture Secretary will have a big task: find bipartisan solutions to help shape the future of agriculture policy.

Related Stories:

Report: Vilsack to Return as Agriculture Secretary

Biden Team’s Proactive Outreach to Agriculture Has Farm Groups Optimistic

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:32:03 GMT

With only 12 days until the Biden presidential inauguration, agriculture is waiting to see what a shift in power will mean for agricultural policy. There is already optimism sprouting from some agricultural groups, with leaders saying the Biden Administration is taking an extremely proactive approach.

“I have been in Washington since Ronald Reagan was President, so I’ve seen administrations come and I’ve seen administrations go. I have never, ever seen the kind of outreach to agriculture that I’ve seen with the Biden folks,” says Jon Doggett, CEO of National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) . “And it isn’t one or two calls, it has been multiple calls at multiple levels, across the board and with many different organizations.”

Doggett says he personally received a phone call from Biden’s EPA pick, Michael Regan , just before Christmas. Doggett also says NCGA isn’t alone, and the common theme is Regan and others want to listen to what issues agriculture is facing.

“And it hasn’t just been him,” says Doggett. “There have been multiple outreaches. I know that our D.C. folks have heard from those folks. So, I’m really encouraged that that they are reaching out. And what is even more important is they seem to be wanting to listen rather than to tell us stuff.”

One of those issues pressing for groups like NCGA and others has to do with the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA ) says the EPA still hasn’t released blending requirements – or RVOS–for 2021, which they say is creating uncertainty among refiners and ethanol producers.

“The current administrator, Andrew Wheeler, is leaving the agency with a lot of balls in the air around the RFS and a lot of messes that need cleaned up,” says Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of RFA. “That’s really going to fall to the Biden Administration to do that.”

Cooper, along with Emily Skor of Growth Energy , are optimistic a Biden Administration will follow the RFS as Congress intended.

“We have high expectations,” says Skor. “Mr. Biden campaigned very strong on the trail on the importance of biofuels, not only for revitalizing the rural economy, but also for addressing climate change. So, he campaigned with very strong statements of support for the Renewable Fuel Standard. He very severely admonished the Trump administration’s EPA for its abuse of the small refinery exemptions. So, certainly within the first 100 days, there’s going to be opportunities for the EPA, in particular, to take action to right the ship and restore integrity to the Renewable Fuel Standard. “

Skor says if the Biden Administration does restore the RFS, she thinks the market will respond positively.

“If the administration does that, that’s like an injection of adrenaline in the arm of rural America,” says Skor. “We need that. We’re optimistic that’s going to be the case. So certainly, that’s been part of the conversation, the short-term opportunities, and the long term. As you see heightened commerce conversation around a clean energy future, we need to have a seat at the table. We are a readily available and affordable solution. And that’s something that we need to see embraced and others are anticipating that will soon change.”

Even with a change in administration accompanied by Democrats gaining majority of the Senate, Doggett is hopeful a theme of compromise will take hold and bode well for agriculture.

“In agriculture, anytime we’ve ever won anything in the Congress, it has been when we played within the 40-yard lines,” he says. “And I am really encouraged with what I see is an emerging group of senators from both sides of the aisle, moderates who are willing to get together in and find some agreements.”

Manchin Blocks Biden's Build Back Better Climate and Social Agenda, What Happens Now?

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:47 GMT

Lawmakers may have left town, but centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) left no doubt that he cannot support President Biden’s $1.75 trillion (or higher) social and climate spending plan, imperiling the president’s agenda. Manchin cited rising consumer prices, a growing federal debt and the arrival of a new coronavirus variant as reasons he could not supply his must-have vote to help his party adopt its signature spending package.

Manchin said Sunday that he cannot support the House-passed version of the social spending package that would have extended child tax credits and provided new subsidies for childcare, preschool and elder care. “I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can’t,” Manchin said on Fox News Sunday. “I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there. This is a no on this legislation.”

The Senate left town Sunday morning without voting on the bill (House departed earlier), which Democrats call Build Back Better (BBB). In a statement Thursday evening, Biden expressed optimism that talks would continue into the new year and eventually lead to an agreement. But Manchin, whose reluctance to get behind the legislation has grown as inflation has risen to levels not seen in decades, now sounds like his mind is made up. Some Democrats say this is Manchin’s typical wage of getting leverage, possibly on a pared-down version of the House-passed legislation.

“I’ve tried. I mean I really did. And the president was trying as hard as he could,” Manchin said. “He has an awful lot of irons in the fire right now. A lot. More on his plate than he needs for this to continue.”

White House Responds

The White House issued an aggressive statement on Manchin. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said had previously assured President Biden he would support some version of the bill and that negotiations were continuing. “If his comments on Fox and written statement indicate an end to that effort, they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate,” Psaki said in a statement. Manchin reportedly informed the administration of his move shortly before going on television Sunday. Top White House officials scrambled to call the senator and talk him out of what he was about to do. “We tried to head him off,” a senior White House official told Politico, but Manchin “refused to take a call from White House staff.”

Manchin expanded on his no reasoning — and offered even harsher words for his fellow Democrats — in a statement issued shortly after his television appearance. “My Democratic colleagues in Washington are determined to dramatically reshape our society in a way that leaves our country even more vulnerable to the threats we face,” he said. “I cannot take that risk with a staggering debt of more than $29 trillion and inflation taxes that are real and harmful to every hard-working American at the gasoline pumps, grocery stores and utility bills with no end in sight.”

Manchin, up for re-election in 2024 in a state that Biden lost by 40 points, also cited a second Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, which Republicans requested, that determined the legislation would cost $4.5 trillion if the subsidies and credits included were extended. The White House dismissed that CBO score as “fake,” arguing that the proposal as written would cost far less and be fully paid for.

Initial Impact

The legislation’s demise means the expiration next month of the 2021 child tax credit that had given qualifying families up to $300 per month for each child under age 6 and up to $250 per month for each child ages 6 through 17. The Biden administration is exploring the possibility of providing double payments in February to make up the shortfall, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Friday. Pushing off the president’s economic agenda until next year means that the payments, which have been sent to families for the past six months but expired Wednesday, are unlikely to be ready for Jan. 15. Psaki said the delayed payments could come in February if the president’s tax-and-spend proposal, which has been put off until after the New Year, gets through Congress in January. “If we get it done in January, we’ve talked to Treasury officials and others about doing double payments in February as an option,” Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One. The Internal Revenue Service had sought enactment of the bill before Dec. 28 to ensure Jan. 15 payments went out on time.

Other impacts include new proposals to subsidize the cost of childcare, preschool and elder care are off the table, for now. The White House had argued such benefits were a prudent response to rising inflation. Manchin’s comments put at risk a $555 billion package of tax credits, grants and other policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Harsh Criticism by Sanders

Sanders comments. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was among the first to react to Manchin’s statement. During an interview on CNN, Sanders said Manchin will have to explain to his constituents in West Virginia, “a state that is struggling,” why he’d stand in the way of new Medicare subsidies for dental coverage and investments aimed at combating climate change. “Let Mr. Manchin explain to the people why he doesn’t have the guts to stand up to powerful special interests,” Sanders said, calling for a full Senate vote on the legislation next month even if the bill fails. “We’ve been dealing with Mr. Manchin for month after month after month,” Sanders said. “But if he doesn’t have the courage to do the right thing for the working families of West Virginia and America, let him vote no in front of the whole world.”

Bottom line:

Manchin’s comments appear to be a solid no and lawmakers are not used to being so specific. BB is dead. Some Dems hope for a new, more Manchin-shaped bill that includes some key pieces of the Biden climate and social policy agenda.

EPA on Standby as Supreme Court Reconsiders WOTUS Rulings

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:41 GMT

Supreme Court justices said earlier this week they will consider a 15-year-long Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) issue involving a couple — the Sacketts — from Idaho who previously pleaded and won a case regarding their building a home near Priest Lake.

EPA says the half-acre lot the couple built their home on contains wetlands, placing the land under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Sacketts would have required a permit to build on the land.

The Sacketts have since filed a petition, disputing the EPA’s determination that the lot is considered wetland. The Pacific Legal Foundation has chosen to represent the couple to show their support — along with 21 states, various businesses and interest groups.

Damien Schiff, Pacific Legal Foundation Lawyer, says the case is emblematic of the wrongdoings in the Clean Water Act. Of the half-acre lot, he says, “It lacks a surface water connection to any stream, creek, lake or other water body, and it shouldn’t be subject to federal regulation and permitting.”

Zippy Duvall, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) president, commented on the U.S. Supreme Court decision saying the group is pleased with the WOTUS issue being taken up in court once more:

“Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with, but they shouldn’t need a team of lawyers to farm their land,” he says. “We call on EPA to push pause on its plan to write a new WOTUS rule until it has more guidance on which waters fall under federal jurisdiction.”

On Dec. 7, 2021, EPA and the Department of the Army announced a proposed rule to revise the definition of the “waters of the U.S.,” with intent to reestablish the pre-2015 definition.

The AFBF suggests EPA halt their plan to rewrite WOTUS until it has more guidance in deciding which waters are categorized under the federal jurisdiction.

Read more:
> The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are seeking comment on the pre-2015 WOTUS rule published in the Federal Register.
> In early May of 2020, the Biden Administration unveiled the name and additional details of the plan to conserve 30% of U.S. land and water by the year 2030.

EPA Fiddles as Flood Clock Rolls on Mississippi Delta’s Forgotten Nightmare

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:41 GMT

If ever a nightmare saga tangled government bureaucracy and politics with science and the backdoor dealings of a federal agency, the Yazoo Backwater Project stands front and center.

Welcome to the Mississippi Delta’s bureaucratic taffy pull, where Environmental Protection Agency officials stand guard over a bathtub of Delta floodwater and refuse to pull the plug, while politicians engage in repeated rounds of navel-gazing, and the livelihoods of 20,000 U.S. citizens and hundreds of farmers hang in the balance.

The Yazoo Backwater Project is an 80-year stop-and-start tale of political indecision, with all government actions wrapped in science under the banner of the Clean Water Act.

“Science? Anybody who genuinely believes our flood crisis is about science could only be from Washington,” says Smith Stoner, a fourth-generation farmer from Yazoo County. “Here’s some guaranteed science: It’s gonna flood again very soon and destroy the lives of thousands of people, cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and turn the Delta into an environmental dead zone, all because the EPA won’t allow the building of relief pumps. If you want to know how corrupt our government really operates, then look at our story—it’s mind-boggling.”

Gordian Knot

Across decades of repeated floods, the citizens (30% below the poverty line) of the South Delta have waited on Army Corps of Engineers construction of a pump system to protect their homes and farmland, as promised by the U.S. government in 1941, through approval of the Yazoo Backwater Project. That was then; this is now.

The overall Mississippi Delta (2.62 million acres) is generally a flood-prone region, but the South Delta (926,000 acres), tucked between the Mississippi and Yazoo rivers, is a water receptacle with a single drain—the four-gated Steele Bayou Drainage Structure in Issaquena County, 10 miles north of Vicksburg. When the Mississippi River gets high, it backs into the South Delta, and in response, the Corps of Engineers closes the Steele Bayou floodgates to ensure the South Delta is not inundated by the rising Mississippi River.

However, the drainage system is both servant and master: It protects the South Delta and holds it prisoner. When the Steele Bayou floodgates are closed, the Delta drain is clogged. In 2019, the backwater reached 98.2’, resulting in a historic flooding event. The vista from fabled Highway 61 was pulled from the pages of water-world fiction: A drive on 61 south of Rolling Fork revealed an ocean stretching to the horizon.

The 2019 South Delta flood featured five months of ruin and it ranks among the most heavily ignored and needless catastrophes in recent U.S. history. A massive chunk of the South Delta was swallowed, evidenced by 548,000 acres of land underwater for nearly half a year, including 231,000 acres of cropland never planted in 2019. Multiple deaths, 686 homes swamped, three highways under water, and 20,000 people pleading for pump relief from the federal government.

The near guarantee of the massive 2019 flood was the worst kept backwater secret of the past 45 years and was openly predicted by South Delta homeowners and landowners since the 1970s, encapsulated by a persistent “Build the Pumps” rallying cry. Mississippi farmers kicked and screamed at the feds for decades, warning of a cataclysm around the corner, and in 2019, the predictions were toe-tagged with a vengeance that left a region in tatters, and forced EPA officials to reckon with a policy train wreck.

At present, the cost to build a pump system for the South Delta is approximately $400-$500 million—a high number on first blush. However, in comparison with perpetual flood costs, $400-$500 million might be considered a bargain for taxpayers. Why? From 2008-2018, the South Delta sustained $372 million in flood damage, and the bill from the calamitous 2019 flood—by itself—is well over $1 billion, estimates Peter Nimrod, chief engineer of the Mississippi Levee Board. “The pumps will pay for themselves in no time,” Nimrod says. “The math is simple and everyone knows it.”

But the math and the dollars are not the source of the figurative and literal clog associated with Yazoo pumps. Rather, the impediment is tangled in a Gordian knot cinched tight by EPA.

Snowflake in Summer

In 2008, EPA vetoed South Delta pumps, citing environmental concerns over wetlands destruction. By bureaucratic fiat, the region was prevented from obtaining flood protection and left perpetually exposed to high water.

Over a decade after EPA’s veto and shortly after the 2019 flood disaster, Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS 2^nd District), issued a press release on Feb. 7, 2020, imploring EPA to reverse its 2008 decision and underscoring the sense of urgency by tossing in “critical” and “vital” as telltale adjectives: “This project is of critical importance for the second congressional district of Mississippi,” as well as, “it is vital for us to remedy this problem.” [emphasis added]

Indeed, EPA reversed course at the end of November 2020 and approved the kickoff of pump construction, a building process slated to last four years. In a green-light letter to the Corps, EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary Walker wrote, “The EPA fully supports the purpose of the project to reduce flood damages in the Yazoo Backwater Area.”

After decades on pause, EPA’s message was crystal clear: Build the pumps. (The $400 million cost was designated as a split between construction and reforestation. The pump units would kick on at 87’, leaving roughly 215,000 acres of the South Delta still flooded, but the compromise was considered manageable by the Mississippi Levee Board.)

Four score and a handful of days after the initial Yazoo Backwater Project approval in 1941—the same calendar year that witnessed Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, Ted Williams bat .406, and Joe DiMaggio soar on a 56-game hitting streak—the Yazoo pumps appeared to be on the cusp of existence.

Snowflake in summer.

The Hand Grenade

Weeks after EPA approval of the Yazoo pump system, with the Trump Administration exiting right and the Biden Administration entering left, four heavyweight environmental groups filed a complaint against EPA on Jan. 12, 2021. American Rivers, National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Healthy Gulf claimed the pumps would wreck the ecology of the South Delta. They described EPA’s decision as “not in accordance with the Clean Water Act.”

Seven months later, on Aug. 27, 2021, E&E News ran a story featuring Yazoo pump assertions by two EPA staffers, Palmer Hough, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds in Washington, D.C., and William Ainslie, wetlands ecologist with the Wetlands Regulatory Section, EPA Region 4 in Atlanta. The pair of “EPA senior scientists” claimed the Yazoo Backwater Project erroneously received EPA approval despite failure to meet Clean Water Act requirements.

(EPA declined all Farm Journal questions related to the Yazoo Backwater Project, and instead, issued the following: “The White House Council on Environmental Quality is convening a multi-Agency working group to bring together the full force of federal resources to help address the flooding challenges in the Yazoo Backwater Area of Mississippi. Through this initiative, the agencies will also engage with impacted communities to identify and implement workable solutions that address the health, safety, and economic needs of these communities, while conserving vital natural resources and ecosystem function…”)

Days after the E&E story, on Aug. 30, Congressman Thompson penned a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan. In contrast with Thompson’s publicly stated support of the Yazoo Backwater Project to South Delta constituents, he asked Regan to review the EPA’s decision, and doubled down on the use of alarming adjectives, this time cranking out “critical” three times, but in reverse context. Per Thompson: “critical concerns raised by career staff scientists were ignored,” and “it is critical that science and law, not politics, drive infrastructure projects,” and finally, “I request that your office conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of the process that led to EPA’s issuance of the referenced letter to the Corps. If you find that any current or previous agency staff intentionally violated the law or ignored critical scientific evidence during the process, I ask that they be held to swift account.” [emphasis added]

Thompson—the direct D.C. representative of the citizenry of the entire Yazoo region affected by flooding—asked EPA for a “comprehensive review” of the Yazoo Backwater Project. Translated: He requested EPA tap the brakes on the pump process.

(Rep. Thompson’s congressional office did not respond to a Farm Journal interview request regarding the Yazoo Backwater Project.)

Thompson’s letter was incendiary, contends Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), a heavyweight proponent and spearhead of advocacy for the Yazoo pumps. Hyde-Smith spoke in blunt fashion on SuperTalk Mississippi following the release of Thompson’s message to EPA. “I have no idea why Congressman Thompson wrote this letter, but I mean he has thrown a hand grenade here.”

Hyde-Smith was incensed: “Why should all the Corps experts who participated in the new study and new project,” she continued, “…why should they take a backseat to two EPA career staff…You talk about politics?”

Two months and a half after Thompson’s review request, EPA sent a cessation letter to the Corps on Nov. 17, 2021. By fiat, EPA once again shelved the Yazoo pumps, claiming violations of the Clean Water Act. Old science bad, new science good.

EPA, a federal agency with a $9 billion budget and 14,000 employees, decreed the future of Mississippi’s South Delta, purportedly based on the contentions of two career scientists based in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.

Calling EPA’s action “arbitrary and capricious,” Hyde-Smith didn’t hold back: “Congressman Bennie Thompson destroyed this project, taking one position in his district, but working against it in Washington.”

Thompson responded, essentially labeling Hyde-Smith a liar. “Today, Senator Hyde-Smith accused me of advocating for the Yazoo Pumps Project in Mississippi while not supporting it in Washington. The senator is wrong. I have gone on record in support of this project, and it is documented. Now, she has the burden to produce a list of the people I have spoken to against the pumps project. If she cannot produce the list, it is clear she is not telling the truth.”

Arguably, the most ironic link in the surreal daisy chain of events was yet to unfold. Roughly a day after issuing his indignation at Hyde-Smith’s comments, Thompson voted in favor of the multi-trillion dollar Build Back Better (BBB) Act—legislation touted as the largest infrastructure package in U.S. history. Significantly, Thompson was a full-throated supporter of BBB. After his Nov. 19, yea-vote for BBB in the House, Thompson issued a press release in support of the “once-in-a-generation action.”

Thompson’s celebratory release contained a bullet-point succession of benefits Mississippians could expect from BBB funds, including a particularly glaring offering at No. 2 on the list: “Help mitigate future natural disasters in the state.”

“You can’t make this s*** up,” Stoner says. “The words of a politician don’t mean a thing. Actions are what count.”

Hyde-Smith on Record

Hyde-Smith pulls no punches when addressing Farm Journal questions regarding the Yazoo pumps.

“If I lived in the Yazoo Backwater I would be angry. The folks who live and work there know when a politician commits to something but only pays lip service to keeping that promise. They understand when a politician doesn’t make an effort to even attend meetings with EPA and other federal officials—meetings that could have kept the pumps from being stopped once again,” she says. “They know when they are being taken for granted and essentially disregarded.”

“I do not have to prove anything on this matter,” she continues. “It’s dismaying that nine months after a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for the project, and more than $10 million into preconstruction and design, Congressman Thompson, who said he supported the pumps, sent a letter to EPA requesting an investigation into EPA’s handling of the project under the previous administration. That pretty much says it all.”

In addition, Hyde-Smith calls out assertions that South Delta flood damage is limited to farmland. “That claim is wrong. Every person who has a home, property, uses the roads and bridges, goes to church, school or work in the Yazoo Backwater Area are affected and deserve the protections associated with finishing the pumps.”

“Numbers don’t lie,” she adds. “Data for the Yazoo Backwater Area shows that 71 percent of the area population is minority, and 30 percent of the population lives below the poverty threshold. The vast majority of the homes—94 percent—that would be removed from the 100-year flood are minority occupied.”

Further, Hyde-Smith points to the gulf in perspective between federal agency officials and longtime residents of the South Delta. “It is terribly frustrating when unelected career bureaucrats, the vast majority of which couldn’t point to the Yazoo Backwater Area on a map or begin to explain the area hydrology, try and tell Mississippians what is best for them, or what they cannot have. It is equally frustrating that the needs of those in the South Delta aren’t afforded the same respect the national media gives to the giant and well-funded environmental organizations.”

Faith no More

Following EPA’s November 2021 directive shuttering the pumps, the Yazoo Basin witnessed the return of Groundhog Day. Far removed from the finery of Capitol Hill or the comforts of an environmental headquarter office in New York, Oakland, Washington, D.C., or New Orleans, 20,000 South Delta citizens recognized a simple boots-on-the-ground truth: High water is always a day away.

“Lies, bribes, corruption, incompetence, or politics at its nastiest—take your pick because I’m ready to believe it all,” Stoner says. “Forget your political views about whether you are left or right, or liberal, independent, or conservative. Any fair-minded person can smell rot on this one.”

“Madness,” Nimrod concurs. “We’re seeing the lives of thousands of people used as pawns in dirty politics. While the inaction continues, the EPA knows—they know—another flood is on the way.”

Thorny Questions

EPA’s claims of Clean Water Act violations and environmental concern related to the Yazoo pumps are challenged by the testimony of residents within the Yazoo region. “Ask anyone who actually lives in the South Delta about what hurts the environment and they can speak to unreal destruction caused by flooding over and over,” Nimrod says. “Wildlife decimation, loss of trees, contaminated aquatics—take a look at the unbelievable losses in nature after a flood and tell me about the environment.”

Stoner poses thorny questions: “What position would the EPA folks, the boardrooms of the environmental groups, and the politicians take if their leaders actually lived in the Delta? What position would they take if their livelihoods and future were at risk? What position would they take if their roads, infrastructure, jobs, homes, small businesses, and farmland were on the line? Easy answer: They’d be begging for pumps.”

Science and Bureaucracy

As the 80-year saga rolls on, is the next chapter a class action lawsuit against EPA? “You can’t play in EPA’s game because EPA doesn’t play straight,” Nimrod says. “We will go around EPA, but it will take time.”

“I want the people of the South Delta to know the Levee Board isn’t giving up,” he emphasizes. “We’re sucker-punched and angry, but we will absolutely keep fighting for protection of people, infrastructure, farms, and wildlife. Pumps are the only solution, and we are not letting go.”

As Nimrod speaks, the flood clock ticks. “There are 20,000 people with anger and desperation levels approaching an all-time high,” he says. “It’s been decades and the government still won’t allow common sense to prevail.”

Nimrod’s sentiments are echoed by Hyde-Smith: “It baffles me that radical environmentalists do not understand that vast amounts of water trapped in a confined area can somehow disappear without a pumping station. I haven’t given up, and I won’t,” she says. “EPA’s recent action was certainly a significant bump in the road, but I have and will continue to push this administration and all agencies involved to find a way to get things back on track.”

The next South Delta flood is a reality Stoner acknowledges with a mix of disgust and disbelief. “My forefathers would be more disappointed in me giving up than I am disappointed in my own government, so I sure as hell will keep fighting and that’s a guarantee. People need to look around and wake up: When the government mixes science and bureaucracy, that’s a powerful tool of control.”

To read more stories from Chris Bennett (cbennett@farmjournal.com), see:

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bagging the Tomato King: The Insane Hunt for Agriculture’s Wildest Con Man

How a Texas Farmer Killed Agriculture’s Debt Dragon

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

The Arrowhead whisperer: Stunning Indian Artifact Collection Found on Farmland

Where’s the Beef: Con Artist Turns Texas Cattle Industry Into $100M Playground

Fleecing the Farm: How a Fake Crop Fueled a Bizarre $25 Million Ag Scam

Skeleton In the Walls: Mysterious Arkansas Farmhouse Hides Civil War History

US Farming Loses the King of Combines

Ghost in the House: A Forgotten American Farming Tragedy

Rat Hunting with the Dogs of War, Farming’s Greatest Show on Legs

Misfit Tractors a Money Saver for Arkansas Farmer

Government Cameras Hidden on Private Property? Welcome to Open Fields

Farmland Detective Finds Youngest Civil War Soldier’s Grave?

Descent Into Hell: Farmer Escapes Corn Tomb Death

Evil Grain: The Wild Tale of History’s Biggest Crop Insurance Scam

Grizzly Hell: USDA Worker Survives Epic Bear Attack

Farmer Refuses to Roll, Rips Lid Off IRS Behavior

Killing Hogzilla: Hunting a Monster Wild Pig

Shattered Taboo: Death of a Farm and Resurrection of a Farmer

Frozen Dinosaur: Farmer Finds Huge Alligator Snapping Turtle Under Ice

Breaking Bad: Chasing the Wildest Con Artist in Farming History

In the Blood: Hunting Deer Antlers with a Legendary Shed Whisperer

Corn Maverick: Cracking the Mystery of 60-Inch Rows

Against All Odds: Farmer Survives Epic Ordeal

Agriculture’s Darkest Fraud Hidden Under Dirt and Lies

2022 Happenings on The Hill

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:41 GMT

The steps of Capitol Hill are once again full of dress shoes and briefcases, as Congress has returned from holiday break. COVID-19-related legislation continues to run the gavel, while rural America urges Congress to deliver on its economic relief promises. Here are three issues to watch.

Build Back Better

In December, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he couldn’t support the House-passed version of the $1.75 trillion social spending bill that would have extended child tax credits and created related subsidies.

“My Democratic colleagues in Washington are determined to dramatically reshape our society in a way that leaves our country even more vulnerable to the threats we face,” Manchin says. “I cannot take that risk with a staggering debt of more than $29 trillion and inflation taxes that are real and harmful to every hard-working American at the gasoline pumps, grocery stores and utility bills with no end in sight.”

Pro Farmer Policy Analyst Jim Wiesemeyer doesn’t know how and when the bill will pass but believes the BBB will go through once it has been scaled-back.

WHIP+

USDA planned to release $10 billion in Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) payments by the end of 2021. Yet, a timeline for distribution is still to be determined. Wiesemeyer says WHIP+ is the “worst implemented program” he’s seen from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) due to the delayed payout. He does, however, see these payments hitting bank accounts by early 2022.

As it stands, the $10 billion in disaster assistance will include:

$9.25 billion in disaster assis- tance to aid producers who suffered losses due to droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, floods and other qualifying disasters. The funding will extend WHIP+ to cover losses in calendar years 2020 and 2021.
$750 million for livestock producers with losses in 2021 due to drought or wildfire. This disaster assistance, the first specifically for livestock producers since 2008, will build on top of existing farm bill pro- grams for livestock producers.

A More Resilient Meat Supply Chain

In January, the Biden administration announced it will spend $1 billion in American Rescue Funds to expand independent meat processing capacity as part of a broader initia- tive to break up what it calls a meat and poultry processor monopoly.

Specifically for farmers and ranchers, the White House Action Plan promises in 2022 to:

1. Expand independent processing capacity and support workers and the independent processor industry.

2. Increase transparency in cattle markets, so ranchers can get a fair price for their work.

3. Issue stronger rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act — the law designed to combat abuses by the meatpackers and processors.

4. Issue new “Product of USA” labeling rules so consumers can better understand where their meat comes from.

Ocean Shipping Reform Act May See the Resolute Desk

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:35 GMT

On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee passed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA), establishing Senate committee support for shipping supply chain challenges.

OSRA would help agricultural exporters by leveling the playing field for American exports, making it harder for ocean carriers to unreasonably refuse goods ready to export at ports. The bill would place guardrails on the ocean carriers’ actions by giving the Federal Maritime Commission rulemaking authority to regulate carrier practices.

In her Senate Commerce Committee opening statement, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) stressed the importance of passing OSRA, saying farmers don’t want special treatment, they simply don’t want to be “exploited” for profit.

“We also know here, in the Committee, that these ocean shipping companies are making record profits,” she said. “They have made $150 billion in profits in 2021, and ocean import volume for the first quarter of this year is forecast to increase by more than 30%.”

U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) and National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) applauded the passage and urged Congress to “expeditiously” advance the process to ease agricultural exports.

Zippy Duvall, AFBF president echoed USDEC and NMPF, sharing his team is “pleased” with the Senate Commerce Committee’s work in moving the legislation to the Senate floor.

“Ongoing supply chain issues and record-high shipping costs threaten to limit exports at a time when our trading partners are increasingly relying on America’s farmers and ranchers,” he says. “Limiting trade also negatively affects farmers’ ability to get much-needed supplies like fertilizer, which ultimately drives up the cost of growing food for America’s families.”

In December 2021, the House passed OSRA under the Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength (COMPETES) Act. The U.S. Senate will vote on OSRA in coming weeks, as Congress commences conference procedures.

More on ag exports:

> House Passes U.S. Ocean Shipping Reform Act

> Seattle Selected for Port Pop-Up to Ease Ag Supply Chain

> Will The USDA Pop-Up Site Solve The Clogged Ports Issue?

What Changed Senator Manchin's Mind About $740B Reconciliation Bill?

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:29 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office says the reconciliation bill, which is being called the “Inflation Reduction Act ” cuts the deficit by $102 billion. However, some legislators are pushing for changes as debate nears, including to electric-vehicle tax-credit limits and a possible carried interest loophole.

The Senate Democrats’ tax, climate and drug-pricing bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $102 billion over 10 years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said . CBO also calculated that increasing the Internal Revenue Service budget would generate $204 billion in new revenue from cracking down on tax avoidance, something that wasn’t included in the official deficit score.

When that is factored in, the CBO analysis is in line with the $300 billion in deficit reduction claim initially made for the bill by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The deficit decrease is driven in part by a repeal of a Trump administration restriction on prescription drug rebates, generating $122 billion and by allowing Medicare to negotiate the cost of high-priced drugs, which generates $102 billion. A 15% corporate minimum tax on large corporations generates $313 billion, as expected, while a narrowing of the carried interest loophole nets $13 billion in the score, slightly less than Democrats forecast.

Perspective

The Tax Foundation notes: “The $280 billion in new spending and tax subsidies Congress just authorized in the Chips and Science Act will nearly cancel out the reported $300 billion in deficit reduction that supporters say will be delivered by the Inflation Reduction Act. And this does not consider the harm that the tax increases will do to the recessionary economy.”

Senators Seek Changes to Bill

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is seeking last-minute changes to strict new electric-vehicle tax-credit limits in the deal amid pressure from the auto industry. Stabenow called the provision a “serious concern,” adding that the EV tax credit, worth billions of dollars, wouldn’t be usable for years.

Major automakers including Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. are arguing against limits that include prohibitions on batteries and critical minerals that are processed in China and other “foreign entities of concern,” which could render the credit useless. Other limits include new caps on vehicle price and consumer income that have drawn opposition from newer automakers like Rivian Automotive LLC.

Carried Interest Loophole?

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is seeking changes to the tax and climate measure, Politico reports, citing multiple people familiar with the matter. Sinema wants to remove the carried interest loophole provision and would like to add about $5 billion in drought resiliency, Politico reports.

Changing the tax provisions risks irking Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who negotiated the legislation with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Manchin has said he is “adamant” that the carried interest change remain in the bill.

A Way to Make the Corporate Minimum Tax Less Costly to Businesses?

One way to make the corporate minimum tax less costly to businesses is to let companies still claim depreciation tax breaks for their investments in equipment and facilities. The levy as currently drafted doesn’t allow businesses to claim those benefits.

What Changed Manchin’s Mind?

Senate meets today on a resolution to rescind the Biden administration’s changes to the nation’s environmental permitting rules under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is a big deal to getting more energy and resources faster.

When Sen. Manchin announced his support for the reconciliation package, he received a “commitment” from Democratic leaders to advance permitting reforms for infrastructure projects by the end of September. While Manchin has yet to release any details further than a framework, a change to environmental permitting rules, which are currently being discussed through SJRes 55, would offer an immediate path for improving review processes.

SJRes 55 is a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution sponsored by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) that disapproves of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) final rule to update implementing regulations under NEPA. If Congress passes the CRA resolution and the president signs it, the CEQ rule would be overturned.

A 2018 review by CEQ found that from 2010 through 2017, it took federal agencies an average of 4.5 years to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS). In a separate analysis, CEQ found that final EISs published between 2013 and 2018 averaged 661 pages.

What’s Currently in the Reconciliation Bill?

The provisions would invest $369.75 billion in Energy Security and Climate Change programs over 10 years.
Proponents said the package would cut about 40% of the country’s carbon emissions by 2030.
Package would raise a total of $739 billion in revenue through programs including a 15% corporate minimum tax, prescription drug pricing reform and IRS tax enforcement. The bill would impose a 15% corporate minimum tax, while raising taxes on carried interest, and raising another $124 billion through IRS tax enforcement. Families making less than $400,000 per year would not be affected. Democrats say it would reduce the deficit by $300 billion.
Besides climate spending, the bill will also spend $64 billion on extending the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) subsidies through the 2024 election and the first term of Biden’s presidency, taking a big political headache off the table for Democrats. Manchin said that “helps people because you just can’t throw [increases] on them during inflammatory times like this.”
For the first time, Medicare would be empowered to negotiate drug prices, something Democrats say would raise $288 billion, and it would cap out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 for drugs.
Manchin said the final deal does not leave out new incentives for electric vehicles, which he’d resisted in what became a major sticking point in the negotiations. Manchin said the bill gives incentives to make new car batteries in America “and not only be able to assemble them but be able to extract the minerals that we need, critical minerals, in North America.” The deal includes a methane fee as well as a $4,000 tax credit for the purchase of used electric vehicles. The bill also includes efforts to make fossil fuels cleaner, Manchin said, and to increase production to help American allies amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has limited European fuel supplies.

Includes Climate-Smart Ag and SAF Incentive Provisions

The new agreement includes ag and biofuel sector provisions including $20 billion to support climate-smart ag practices. It also includes the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit of $1.25/gallon.

John Dillard: Supreme Court Fences In Federal Agencies (A Little)

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:29 GMT

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court took a big step toward limiting the discretion of federal agencies to impose economically or politically significant regulations without the clear authority of Congress.

The immediate impact of the case affects the electrical power generation industry, but the Supreme Court’s decision will likely cause federal agencies to pare back some of their regulatory ambitions that affect a broad array of industries, including agriculture.

THE CLEAN POWER PLAN

The case, West Virginia v. EPA, involved a challenge to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan, which was never implemented, was a Clean Air Act regulation that would have authorized EPA to impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by electricity providers.

At issue in the case was if the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to take such sweeping action to address GHG emissions. Congress had never specifically directed EPA to make rules addressing GHG emissions at power plants.

However, in the rulemaking, EPA relied on broad language that provided general authority for EPA to regulate air pollution emissions from power plants. The Clean Power Plan’s detractors argued reliance on general congressional authority wasn’t enough when EPA’s plan could cost billions of dollars. The Supreme Court agreed.

BROAD VERSUS SPECIFIC

Federal agency rulemaking requires all regulations must trace their authority back to an act of Congress. However, Congress’ laws vary in terms of the level of specificity it provides to federal agencies that implement the laws. But, Congress often provides broadly worded directions (e.g., promote food safety).

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA will clamp down on regulations based on general congressional authority rather than clear directions from Congress. The majority held that if a regulation addresses matters of “vast economic or political significance,” or a “major question,” then there must be “clear congressional authorization” for the agency to act.

FUTURE FARM IMPLICATIONS

It will likely take several similar cases to refine what constitutes a “major question” or “clear congressional authorization,” but it is clear the conservative-leaning Supreme Court is charting a course to rein in federal agencies. This will have implications for environmental and other forms of regulations facing farmers and ranchers.

The decision will also put more emphasis on the specificity of language passed by Congress. If you’re active in farm organizations or trade associations, this will mean working with legislators to obtain specific, sought-for language to be included in legislative text.

No stranger to dirty boots, John Dillard, an attorney with OFW Law, focuses his practice on agricultural and environmental litigation.

What’s Your Take on the 2018 Farm Bill?

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:31:29 GMT

U.S. House Agriculture Committee is seeking feedback on the previous Farm Bill in preparation for the upcoming 2023 Farm Bill .

Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), House Ag republican leader, says farm bill feedback is “critical” with 2023 Farm Bill discussions in full swing.

“Hearing directly from farm country about what’s working and what’s not is the only way to ensure we craft a bill that meets the needs of rural America,” said Thompson.

House Ag Chairman David Scott (D-Ga.) “strongly encourages” producers to add their inputs on how the 2018 Farm Bill has or has not met their needs so as to craft a new bill that’s better suited for the people.

2018 Farm Bill feedback can be submitted through the online form .

More at Stake

Election midterms are around the corner. Randy Russell, president of The Russell Group, says the direction of 2022 elections will largely determine the 2023 Farm Bill parameters.

“If the House does flip, Glenn Thompson will become chair and that’s a very influential position over the Senate,” he says. “Even if Republicans were to take control, you’re still going to need Democratic votes to pass a farm bill.”

While party control is important to consider, Russell feels the primary farm bill angle—no matter who is running the gavel—will be focused on nutrition.

“If you take the 2023 Farm Bill and extend it for 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the total cost would be $1.3 trillion. Of that $1.3 trillion, $1 trillion is in nutrition,” says Russell. “I think that’s going to set up a debate about the role of nutrition versus farm program, among other aspects of the farm bill.”

Support for farm programs, crop insurance, trade programs, ag research and food safety will come down to balancing the scale with the $1 trillion nutrition price tag, according to Russell. He says “we’ve got to be willing to make a deal on the nutrition side” to attract votes from urban and suburban politicians.

The next 2023 Farm Bill review will take place on July 20, where House Ag Committee members will consider title XI crop insurance.

More on the coming farm bill:

Farm Bill 2023 Drives Up the Heat in House Ag Committee Hearing

Factors That Will Shape the 2023 Farm Bill