Inside The Beltway -- November '99 Ag policy update from the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. Jump down menu: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Inside the Beltway is Sustainable Farming Connection's online version of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group's Washington Report. We reproduce it with MSAWG's permission. Do not reproduce or post to any electronic network without specific permission. Contact Brad DeVries bdevries@cais.com for more information. Of course there are plenty of important things going on here in our nation's capitol. But the real noteworthy news comes from some of the major transitions happening in the lives of several folks we've come to know and love over the phone and at our thrice-yearly gatherings around the Midwest. As you certainly know by now, we wished a very fond farewell to Kris Thorp at
our recent MSAWG meeting in North Dakota. Despite an extended encore in
Walthill (during which we can only hope that the Center and the rest of us
became accustomed to the terrifying idea of running this Working Group without
her hard work), the house lights are up, the roadies are ![]() As we reported in the October issue, the House of Representatives approved a crop insurance reform bill (H.R. 2559) at the end of September, at the same time Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar was introducing his very different bill (S. 1666) for consideration by his Senate colleagues. On October 14, the Senate Committee held a very unusual hearing to discuss -- mostly amongst themselves -- their competing visions for reform. With the chairman holding out for his "risk management payments" plan (see October issue for details), the hearing was inconclusive and kicked off about two weeks of staff negotiations over a potential compromise bill combining elements of the mainstream Kerrey-Roberts and Cochran-Lambert bills and the upstart Lugar bill. In the end, finding a way to combine the two vastly different approaches in a manner that left enough funding in either to be acceptable proved too difficult for the end of session negotiations. Finally, on November 5, Lugar announced that a markup would occur next year, no later than the first week of March, and that negotiations would continue during the winter recess. The March date is important because the funding for the legislation -- $6 billion over 4 years -- is included in this past year's budget resolution and there is no assurance that it will still be left on the table after Congress passes its next budget in April. The new funding would double the crop and revenue insurance program budget to over $3 billion per year. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition communicated with Senate offices urging adoption of improved language for crop diversification and conservation within the Lugar risk management payment program, recoupling basic conservation requirements to crop insurance subsidies, and improvements and expansion of Lugar's proposed Whole Farm Revenue Insurance Pilot Program. The Coalition also urged adoption of payment and subsidy limitations and inclusion of House-passed language prohibiting loss of indemnity payments merely because sustainable or organic farming practices were utilized. Some environmental organizations attacked all the bills other than Lugar's for subsidizing excess production in disaster-prone areas, especially floodplains, at high environmental and taxpayer cost. Most farm groups supported a compromise that would adopt most of the Kerrey-Roberts bill and provide the risk management payment alternative only as a limited option or pilot project. USDA did not offer a clear cut positions in public on the major controversies.
![]() Several major appropriations bills for the fiscal year that started October 1st are still pending as we go to press. Buried in the largest one of them (Labor-HHS-Education) is more emergency farm spending, including more disaster payments for North Carolina and the Middle Atlantic states plus, we expect, other ag spending "odds and ends" - we are on the alert for bad amendments. This vehicle is also likely to be the scene for the last dairy program show down of the year over milk marketing order reform and the dairy compact. Senators Kohl and Feingold of Wisconsin have placed "holds" on all bill still pending in an attempt to make sure no action takes place. The New York delegation, however, is floating a compromise that is still taking shape as we go to press. Our next issue will report the final results on this bill.
![]() USDA Secretary Glickman announced October 27 that with passage of the emergency farm aid bill (see October issue), direct farm payments in 1999 will top out at a record $22.5 billion. In answering questions from reporters, the Secretary made a point of saying the Department would vigorously enforce the new, far more liberal, payment limitations, estimating that even with the doubling of the limit to $460,000 about 20,000 farm program recipients would have payments reduced because they would exceed the limitation. At the same news conference, Glickman complained that Congress failed to provide any money to implement the new mandatory livestock price reporting requirements. He estimated it would cost $4.7 million per year and urged Congress to find a way to get them the money. He also indicated that Undersecretary Gus Schumacher would be in charge of developing farm program reform options to present to Congress next year. In response to a question, Schumacher indicated some concern over the near 50% cut in farm operating and ownership loan funds for FY 2000, but refused to say whether USDA would request a supplemental appropriation.
![]() Also on the appropriations front, the bill that includes funding for EPA was finalized in late October. The bill includes a second $5 million for the America's Clean Water Foundation to work with the National Pork Producers Council to implement on-farm environmental assessments for hog production operations. Another $1 million is provided for the Animal Waste Management Consortium through the University of Missouri, plus $1.5 million for FAPRI to link economic and environmental data with ambient water quality in Missouri watersheds and $1.5 million for the Univ. of Missouri Agroforestry Center. Senator Kit Bond, the chairman of the subcommittee, added all of these
earmarks. Other earmarks in the bill not requested by the Administration include
$700,000 for livestock pollution abatement (Tarleton State Univ.), $750,000 for
animal waste technologies at Purdue, $350,000 for a "Consortium for Ag
Soils Among the programs reduced to make room for these and many other earmarks is a $4.7 million reduction in the Sustainable Development Challenge Grants program. In report language, the EPA appropriations bill directs the agency to conduct, in conjunction with USDA, a "cost and capability assessment" of the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (UNSAFO). A report is to be filed with Congress no later than May 15, 2001. We will be following up with the agencies to find out how this assessment will be carried out.
![]() As we were putting this issue to bed and packing up for the Missouri MSAWG meeting, the Senate was still scheduled to debate an amendment by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) to enact an 18-month moratorium on mergers between large agribusinesses. The Senate postponed a vote on the amendment until Wednesday, November 17. The moratorium would terminate before 18 months if: Congress enacted legislation dealing with vertical integration or (more likely) scientists at a certain "Life Sciences" company announced the insertion of the gene for a human soul into top company executives. Senator Wellstone described the amendment as an important opening in congressional debate over vertical integration in U.S. agriculture. The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture is circulating an important action alert urging calls to U.S. senators on this important amendment. On a related note, Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that his committee will hold hearings early next year on agriculture antitrust issues. Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) is nearing completion of a major ag antitrust bill. In addition to Leahy, Senators Grassley (R-IA), DeWine (R-OH), Ashcroft (R-MO), Abraham (R-MI), Kohl (D-WI) and Feingold (D-WI) are also members of the committee.
![]() On October 28, 1999, the Subcommittee on Departmental Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry of the House Committee on Agriculture held a hearing focused primarily on EPA's proposed actions and regulations for the Clean Water Act's Section 303 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The hearing also touched briefly on the EPA's Draft Guidance for NPDES permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The TMDL program requires states to identify state waters for which existing pollution controls are insufficient to ensure that the waters meet the water quality standards necessary to support the state- designated uses of the waters. The states must develop TMDL plans that limit the pollutants entering the impaired waters and allocate the allowable discharges of pollutants among the dischargers. Although EPA cannot directly regulate nonpoint source polluters, under the Clean Water Act, the states retain the authority to adopt more stringent regulations than the EPA, including regulation of both point and nonpoint sources of water pollution. The tone of the hearing was set by the introductory remarks of the Subcommittee Chair, Rep. Goodlatte (VA-6th District), who opined that the EPA's proposed TMDL program was extremist, did violence to environmental laws, and was illegal. Chuck Fox, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water noted that the EPA's proposed program was a response, in part, to successful litigation brought by environmental groups around the country. Imagine that, Congress unhappy when the executive branch enforces the laws the House & Senate passed! Fox also indicated that EPA is not proposing any new regulatory authority in the TMDL program with regard to agriculture. Glenda Humiston, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, stated, without providing details, that USDA was critical of some points in the EPA TMDL program and then proceeded to laud the voluntary, incentive programs of the USDA for dealing with agricultural pollution. John Barrett, a grain and cotton farmer from Texas who had served on the EPA advisory committee for the TMDL program, expressed his concern that a TMDL plan in development in southern Texas included the possibility of reducing fertilizer applications. Chuck Fox replied that the decision to limit fertilizer application was being made by the state, not the EPA. Testimony on the CAFO NPDES permit program was provided by Arthur Nash of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, who complained of the burden to the states of administering the proposed NPDES CAFO program, including the development of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans.
![]() The House Agriculture Committee and House Science Committee both held hearings in late October on biomass research bills. The Senate Ag Committee held a similar hearing earlier in the year. The House hearings took up H.R. 2827, "The National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act" introduced by House Ag Subcommittee Chairman Thomas Ewing (R-IL) and H.R. 2819, "The Biomass Research and Development Act" introduced by Mark Udall (D-CO). Both bills would set up large new competitive grants programs for biobased products and fuels through USDA and DOE, as would a similar bill (S 935) introduced in the Senate by Dick Lugar (R-IN). These bills represent the only major ag research initiatives being actively considered by Congress at the current time. Both USDA and DOE testified broadly in favor of the bills, though both said they were too prescriptive. Both pointed to the Executive Order issued by the President in August to develop and promote biobased products and bioenergy. USDA estimated it currently spends $9 million per year on biofuels and related research, and $63 million per year on new uses of biobased products. There is a strong possibility of action on these measures in the coming year, especially with Earth Day 2000 activities centered on energy issues, including agriculture. We will keep you posted.
![]() The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced it will hold three public meetings entitled "Biotechnology in the year 2000 and Beyond" on issues within FDA's jurisdiction related to human and animal foods developed from bioengineered plants. [64 Federal Register at pp. 57470-57472 (October 25, 1999)] Essentially, the FDA seeks comments on its policy for foods derived from new plant varieties, particularly the following two major issue areas: scientific and safety issues and public information issues, including labeling. Background information on FDA's current policy, including the centerpiece 1992 Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, is posted on the web at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biotechm.html, which is accessible through the Foods highlighter on the agency's homepage www.fda.gov. The public meetings will be held in Chicago, IL, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, CA. Those who wish to attend or speak at the meetings must register at least 15 days before the meeting. See the Federal Register notice for details on information that must be submitted for registration or contact the person indicated below as the contact for the meeting you wish to attend. You may also contact Martha Noble at the SAC office for more information on the meetings. The Chicago meeting will be held November 18, 1999 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. at
One Prudential Plaza, Plaza Club, 40th Floor, 130 East Randolph St. , Chicago IL
60601. For information and to register to attend this meeting, contact
Darlene Bailey, FDA Chicago District, Phone; (312) 353-7126; FAX: (312)
886-3280, The Washington, D.C. meeting will be held November 30, and the Oakland, CA meeting on December 13, 1999. In addition to the public meetings, the FDA is accepting written comments on the issues until January 13, 2000. Written comments should be submitted by mail to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food & Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville MD 20852. Comments should refer to Docket No. 99N-4282.
![]() Members of Congress are also taking action. On November 5, 1999, 49 members of Congress, led by Representative David Bonior (MI), sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, requesting that the FDA require labeling for genetically engineered or modified foods under the authority given to the agency by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A copy of the letter is posted on the web at www.foe.org/safefood/bonior.html. Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has announced that he intends to introduce a bill in the House of Representatives entitled the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act". The Act will require mandatory labeling for foods that contain genetically engineered material or are produced with genetically engineered material. It also will require verification of genetically engineered material through the food chain from the seed company through farmers, manufacturers, and retailers to customers. The Act will provide a system for a guaranty for food that does not contain genetically engineered material, which can be used by the holder of the guarantee to avoid civil or criminal penalties under the Act.
![]() A National Cattlemen's Beef Association delegation returned from a recent trip to Europe to assess "the political climate" (and, one assumes, conduct a selfless, exhaustive search for an open, assertive Bordeaux that pairs well with steak) with news of a possible interim settlement of the EU ban on hormone-fed beef. Under the proposal, Europe would increase the quota for U.S. non-hormone fed beef and reduce or eliminate tariffs on U.S. beef. NCBA said it was considering supporting the measure as a temporary step before U.S. trade retaliation forced the Euros to drop their hormone ban, but delegation participants noted powerful EU willingness to absorb tariff punishment rather than give in on this issue. Temporary or not, this may be an opportunity for U.S. "natural" labels to make inroads into European kitchens.
![]() The Clinton Administration sent up to Capitol Hill legislation that would allow the interstate shipment of meat and poultry from state-inspected plants. While the bill has no current congressional sponsor, USDA says it has received a good reception on theHill. State-inspected plants that met the federal guidelines would be eligible to use federal and state inspection seals (or possibly a single seal that combines the two) and ship outside of a state's borders. Currently, state standards must be "equal to," though not identical to, federal standards based on the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) model. Under the proposed legislation, states would have one year to transition to enforcement of the federal standard, and could receive reimbursement up to 60%of the cost of meeting these requirements, up from the current 50% for meeting "equal to" standards. The Department would take over state programs that did not make the transition.
![]()
![]()
©1999 Committee for Sustainable Farm Publishing Please read about our usage permission policy and disclaimer. Send comments, suggestions and questions to the site author: Craig Cramer cdcramer@clarityconnect.com Coded using HoTMetaL Pro 3.0. Best viewed in Netscape 3.0 or later. Please see our credits page for more information. http://metalab.unc.edu/farming-connection/farmpoli/msawg/wash9909.htm |