Farm Bill Update

Both the House and Senate Farm Bill versions have passed out of committee and are ready to take to the floors. The Senate will move its bill to the floor next week, hoping to have it done before the Memorial Day Congressional recess that starts May 27th. The final Senate bill was approved in committee by a vote of 15 to 5, so the Senate is expected to approve the final package. The five Senators voting against the bill were Gillibrand (D-NY), McConnell (R-KY), Roberts (R-KS), Johanns (R-NE), and Thune (R-SD).  Although expected to pass, the inclusion of target prices in the bill will be troublesome for some Senators and could potentially hold up passage. Four Republican Senators – McConnell (KY); Roberts (KS); Johanns (NE) and Thune (SD) want the target price program eliminated, saying that the government has no business setting target prices and messing with the free market system.

The House Ag Committee approved its version of the Farm Bill by a vote of 36 to 10. It was not an easy approval, as they debated it for over nine hours. The ten votes cast against the bill were from Democrats, heavily opposing the proposed $20 billion in cuts to SNAP (food stamps). Speaker Boehner and other House leaders have not scheduled a time to hear the Farm Bill on the floor, but have “guaranteed” that it will be heard by the full House.

The biggest issue facing passage of a full Farm Bill by the entire Congress is the SNAP issue. The House Farm Bill proposes $20 billion in cuts and the Senate proposes $4 billion, obviously a huge difference. As food stamps constitute over 80% of the cost of the $940 billion Farm Bill, this will not be easy to negotiate between the two legislative bodies.

For some more details, the Senate version reauthorizes funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program at the 2008 Farm Bill levels of $200 million and $34.5 million annually respectively. I’m not sure about the House version.

As for dairy, the Senate bill includes an amendment on the Federal Milk Marketing Orders, as proposed by Senators Leahy (VT); Gillibrand (NY) and Cowan (MA). The amendment would establish a process and time table on potentially changing the current pricing formula for Class III milk. The House Bill has no comparable amendment. 

Hopefully, things will get settled fairly quickly and we'll get a full, five-year Farm Bill soon. Keep your fingers crossed. 

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Legislative Director 

Horse Stakes: A Medium-Rare Problem for Some

Back in rural New Mexico, nestled deep in dairy country, exist several agribusinesses. Valley Meat Co. is one of those businesses. Valley Meats, owned and operated by Rick De Los Santos, is a 7,200 square-foot meatpacking plant—but Valley Meats is packing more than meat—they’ve been packing controversy.

De Los Santo says, “Everyone is talking about this as a humane issue. This is not a humane issue. It’s politics.” De Los Santo is referring to his much-anticipated green-light from USDA to allow his converted beef packing facility to open its doors—or gates—to horses.

Valley Meat Co. would be the first of nearly a dozen meatpacking facilities to enter into the horse slaughtering industry. As European Nations have been in the news lately of traditional beef being tainted with horsemeat, now wasn’t the time for entrepreneurs to venture into the horse slaughtering business, but many ranchers and meatpackers, including De Los Santo, now see this as the time.

The dismal economy in recent years has caused many American horse owners to put their giant pets on diets, or even worse, have abandoned them. Even though the U.S. doesn’t have a strong appetite for horse meat, our neighbors to the south and north have been slaughtering horses all along. It pains meatpacking businessmen, like Rick De Los Santos, to see horses being trucked to Mexico—often 

times inhumanely—to meatpacking facilities.

Some proponents of the horse slaughtering industry see the animal rights element to the controversy as a fallacy, being that neglected horses are trucked for long periods of time to potentially unsafe plants that latter ship the meat to Asia. In 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office discovered that horse abuse and abandonment increased since Congress closed the horse slaughter industry in 2006 by defunding the mandatory USDA meat inspectors. Therefore, some believe that the horsemeat supply chain should be tilted to America’s favor, benefiting U.S. meatpackers while ensuring safe and humane measures are in effect.

Valley Meat Co. has been forced to hire guardsmen to protect the property from reoccurring vandals and other intruders. With a continuous feed of death threats, Valley Meat Co. has placed their answering machine into the hands of federal authorities for safety. However, locals are fairly indifferent to the plant and show little attention to the changes occurring at Valley Meat Co.

Labeled as murders of the majestic animals that are viewed as the iconic soul of the American west, Rick De Lost Santo has no shortage of opponents. In fact, President Obama’s administration has proposed a 2014 budget that excludes meat inspectors for horse slaughter plants, which would in effect close the operations.

Governor of New Mexico—Susana Martinez—and the New Mexico’s Attorney General—Gary King—suggest more humane acts of “horse-control” should be implemented; such as, birth control programs and additional funding for horse rescue operations.

However, Rick De Los Santos isn’t alone. Surprisingly, the American Quarter Horse Association, numerous ranchers, several livestock associations and several Native American tribes encourage De Los Santos’ efforts, saying that any attempt to open a horse slaughter operation in the U.S would be more humane than hauling the horses to Mexico.

As Rick De Los Santos sits in his office at Valley Meat Co. wondering if his retrofitted meat plant can accommodate the planned 75-100 head of horses a day; animal activists are brainstorming ways in which to deter the industry from startup. Perhaps the American horse slaughter industry is a great example of where common-sense economics isn’t politically pretty, but very effective at increasing the well being of animals, their owners and the people that turn them into steaks.

After all, De Los Santos was correct if referring to this controversy not as a humane issue but as a strong emotional political battle.  

-Lance Waybright

National Grange Intern 

Making Progress on Rural Broadband

The importance of rural broadband access and wireless coverage is a timely issue – not only in America’s heartland, but also in our nation’s capital.  Stories from rural areas about improved access, applications, and other uses are popping up.  Meanwhile, the Senate Communications Subcommittee used its first hearing of the new Congress to address the State of Rural Communications, and data in the FCC’s recently released wireless competition report shows that voice and broadband access in rural areas is on the rise.    

There have been many reports, like this piece in Iowa Farmer Today, that demonstrate growth in the use of smartphones and wireless broadband in rural communities, especially by farmers and ranchers. The piece states that apps are becoming “an increasing part of farming operations, for crops and livestock.”  And it’s no wonder.  A simple read through some of the apps that are being developed and it’s easy to understand their enormous utility for American farmers and ranchers.  From apps that help to effectively manage pests and plant pathogens, to apps that help with energy efficiency by tracking fuel usage, the possibilities are almost endless. 

Farmers and ranchers aren’t the only ones in rural communities who benefit from wireless devices and wireless broadband.  Wireless products and technologies also allow Americans in rural communities to have greater access to healthcare through telemedicine, greater access to educational opportunities through online courses, and greater opportunities to grow their businesses through e-commerce. Those are just naming a few.

However, the benefits of apps and wireless broadband can only be realized by those who have access to them. Fortunately, the FCC’s wireless competition report shows that access is continuing to improve.  According to the report, which was released in late March, “97 percent of the U.S. rural population has coverage by at least one mobile wireless broadband provider, up from 92 percent in November 2009.”

One program in particular is interesting in that it showcases how the largest carrier is working with rural carriers to bring LTE to rural communities.  This is Verizon Wireless’ LTE in Rural America program.  As of March, VZW was working with 21 carriers in an effort to cover about 2.8 million people in 14 states.  Between VZW’s LTE equipment and 700 MHz spectrum, and the rural carriers tower and backhaul assets, the partnerships are helping rural carriers to build and operate their own LTE networks – 7 of which have already launched.

While there is still work to be done to ensure that all Americans in rural communities have access to mobile broadband, the outlook is positive. Broadband providers are stepping up with creative ways to serve unserved communities, and those communities are utilizing that service to adopt new, innovative applications tailored to their lives. It's no wonder the issue has drawn the attention of Congress.

-Guest Blogger 

EPA gets in the way of business...again.

Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Gina McCarthy to be the Administrator of the EPA. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) took the opportunity to highlight the consequences of EPA’s overregulation, specifically on the coal industry.

Senator Barrasso highlighted that in taking employment opportunities away from hard working Americans, the EPA is potentially creating bigger social issues. According to Barrasso, "Regulations and proposed rules on greenhouse gases, coal ash, mercury emissions and industrial boilers have led to the closing of dozens of power plants in the U.S., costing our country thousands of jobs. Folks who now have no money, no job, no prospect for a job in their communities, and they are experiencing serious health risks as a result of that.” The Wyoming Senator knows the consequences of burdening the coal industry all too well -40 percent of domestic coal production comes from Wyoming. 

Senator Barrasso’s statements introduce a bigger issue: What is the true cost of overregulation and how does overregulation slow our economy and block business development?

For example, we’ve mentioned the proposed export terminal expansion projects in the Pacific Northwest and the benefits these facilities would bring to the agriculture community in the region by increasing bulk commodities capacity. These export terminals would be expanded to respond to the growing demand of coal in the Asian markets; an economic opportunity that would benefit other industries through increased rail and export expansions.

However, the authorization process has been burdened by ongoing debates as opponents continue to ask for additional layers or regulations and studies beyond what the current federal law requires.  It’s clear to me that these efforts outside of the formal process are designed to slow and convolute the official process.

Senator Barrasso was correct in waiving a red flag about the negative effects of overregulation, which not only affect the coal industry, but directly and indirectly affect other industries as well. 

We at the Grange encourage elected officials to stand up for economic prosperity and common sense government. Hopefully, we can get more legislators like Barrasso to stand up for ag and the multitude of industries it touches.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Legislative Director 

2013 Farm Bill Update

Tamara Hinton, spokesperson to the House Agriculture Committee, said on the 18th that Frank Lucas—Chairman of the ag-committee—is intending to reignite Farm Bill discussion as early as mid-May.

After an expected defeat last year due to bipartisan disagreements over dairy supply policy and the SNAP program (also known as food stamps), lawmakers are ready to try again.

House Speaker John Boehner participated in farm bill optimism; however, Boehner acknowledges the present difficulties that surround placing a bill into law. “There is a lot of fraud in the program [SNAP] and it needs to be dealt with. Some of our members want to deal with it, other don’t. I think that’s been the biggest impediment to getting the farm bill, but I’m optimistic that we will get a farm bill this year.”

The USDA is expecting a 12% budget cut while managing an increased demand on the provided services. At the farm bill forum, Speaker Boehner mentioned that there are over 18 million new participants enrolled in the food stamp program. Like Boehner, there are many other representatives who are concerned about the popularity of the food stamp program and whether it’s being utilized correctly.

Passing a new Farm Bill before the September 30^th deadline will undoubtedly be an up-hill battle with plenty of partisan agendas fueling the fight. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that legislators on the Hill can work out something so America’s farmers and ranchers can finally have the safety and assurance that the Farm Bill provides.

-Lance Waybright

National Grange Intern