Johanns explains

I had a chance to visit with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today about the farm bill process. In the interview, he explains his five points of departure from the House bill and why he would recommend that President Bush veto it if it shows up in current form later this year. Developing....

House Republicans in question

Here is a comment provided through our comment box:
-------


Mr. Karst, I just posted a blog post on this topic at the Blog for Rural America, but I thought you might be interested in the actual e-alert sent by the House Republican Leadership. It is pasted below (if that will work in this form). Dan Owens

From: GOP Leader Alert [mailto:GOPLeaderAlert@mail.house.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: House Dems to Pay for Farm Bill With Tax Increase That Threatens American Jobs

HOUSE DEMS TO PAY FOR FARM BILL WITH TAX INCREASE THAT THREATENS AMERICAN JOBS

July 25, 2007

In a sneak attack on American working families, House Democratic leaders have revealed they will pay for new spending in the 2007 farm bill by imposing a new tax increase that threatens more than 5 million American jobs. The Democratic tax hike scheme was kept secret from House Republicans and the media during weeks of committee deliberation on the 2007 farm bill, which is scheduled for a vote on the House floor tomorrow. The Democrats' surprise tax hike would raise taxes on "insourcing" companies operating inside the United States, potentially driving millions of American jobs out of the country. Specifically, the Democratic scheme would raise taxes on insourcing employers that operate throughout the U.S. and employ more than 5.1 million Americans. These jobs have an average compensation per worker of $63,428 annually - 32 percent higher than other typical U.S.-based jobs. (Source: Organization for International Investment) A list of employers in the United States likely to be impacted by the Democrats' sneak attack tax hike can be found at: http://www.ofii.org/insourcing-stats.htm#statejobs. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today declared Republicans will fight the Democrats' tax increase and mobilize against it: "The tax increases just keep on coming. The proposed legislation - sprung on the American public at the last possible minute, right before the farm bill comes to the floor - would raise taxes and endanger the jobs of millions of American workers to pay for billions of dollars in new spending by the federal government. You can't increase the security of American farmers by destroying millions of American jobs and endangering the economic freedom and security of millions of our working families. House Republicans will stand and fight this proposal vigorously on behalf of the American people." The Democrats' surprise tax hike scheme was also condemned today by Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA), the ranking Republican member of the Ways & Means Committee: "This proposal will raise taxes on many businesses operating in the United States. It will hurt our competitiveness and our standing in the world by carelessly violating a host of treaties. It is bad policy and bad politics.

Democrats are trying to sneak a far-reaching and potentially destructive proposal through the House without proper consideration. Any fair-minded person who cares about the U.S. economy will oppose this bill." Ways & Means Committee Republicans note that the Democratic tax hike legislation would, in some cases, impose the equivalent of a 30 percent gross receipts tax on certain American businesses owned by foreign companies. Among companies that could be affected: Honda North America, Food Lion, Nestle, Bayer, BASF, T-Mobile, and others. "To attempt to impose this sort of one-size-fits all tax increase so cavalierly and capriciously, without hearings, without a markup, without any sort of bipartisan discussion, is an insult to the Ways and Means Committee and the House," Rep. McCrery said today.

Republican Leader Press Office Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) H-204, The Capitol (202) 225-4000 http://republicanleader.house.gov/

TK: What does this message from House GOP leadership mean for support of the farm bill from Republican members of the Agriculture Committee? Checking into that right now.... Thanks to Dan Owens, and a link to his blog.

Michigan blue

One Michigan blueberry shipper told me today that drought conditions may trim 10% to 20% off what was expected to be a crop of 88 million pounds in the state. Fresh market conditions have been supported by a strong processing market and shorter crops in Georgia (30% of normal) and North Carolina (40% of normal). Northwest growers have also been dealing with rain and then heat, robbing some yields there. Current prices in Michigan of $21 per flat may strengthen to perhaps $22-24 by mid-August, the shipper said.

Produce machines needed

Luis of our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion group started this interesting thread about produce machines. This is a great example of why the blog readers should also be members of the discussion group. Lots of news and links provided to the group apart from Fresh Talk.

Luis provides links to several "bots" under development for anything from weeding to harvesting and writes:

New harvesting technology may call for yet newer growing practices (i.e. the whole package) and thus, the continuing R&D support the industry knows full well is the basis of its competitiveness.

TK: The apple industry and tree fruit interests in general have been active in this area, lobbying for more research focus on labor saving technology.

Thanks for your thoughts!

TK: Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns chimed in with some off key remarks earlier today about the House farm bill and House Agriculture Commitee Chairman Collin Peterson is quick to respond: From the House Ag Committee release...


Bush Administration Threatens to Veto Bipartisan Food and Farm Legislation
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson issued the following statement today:
"Today, the Bush Administration failed rural America and all Americans by threatening to veto the 2007 Farm Bill passed by the House Agriculture Committee.
This Farm Bill is supported by a broad spectrum of agriculture, conservation, nutrition and renewable energy advocates. It represents a carefully crafted compromise that includes substantial reforms and new investments in programs that matter, including fruit and vegetable production, nutrition programs, conservation and renewable energy. Our bill implements Country of Origin Labeling, improves food safety, and paves the way for energy independence while preserving the safety net that our farmers and ranchers need.
This is not the first time that the Bush Administration has turned its back on American agriculture and rural America. They repeatedly threatened to veto disaster assistance for agriculture, which the Democratic leadership passed this year. The Administration also vigorously opposed the 2002 Farm Bill, which Secretary Johanns and others now praise as 'the right bill at the right time.'
Political posturing is par for the course for this Administration, and they have failed to pursue and achieve compromise on any number of issues, including the Farm Bill. The House Agriculture Committee put together a balanced, fiscally responsible Farm Bill, and I am confident that the House of Representatives will stand with us in supporting this important legislation."

Nano Nano

There is a press teleconference going on right now with the FDA on the issue of nanotechnology. The FDA is unveiling a report from the agency's nanotechnology task force, which can be found here. While medical devices and drugs appear to be the major focus of nanotechnology, it is not inconceivable to imagine their use as pesticides or food additives. Not much knowledge in the press about potential application of nanotechnology, and the agency appears to be feeling its way as well.

Throw in immigration for good measure

Pic from United.....Caption: Tom Stenzel, president & CEO of United Fresh Produce Association, joins House Ag. Committee Chairman Peterson and Representatives Cardoza and Costa to thank them on behalf of the specialty crops industry

It seems industry priorities take multiple years and numerous WPPC conferences to see any movement on Capitol Hill. Now it seems one industry priority after another is falling in sequence.
More equitable funding for f/v in the farm bill (check)
A resolution to the country of origin labeling issue(check)

I just visited with Tom Stenzel of United Fresh about the process to come up with a COOL resolution. (more on that later) I asked, why not throw immigration into the farm bill for good measure? I kidded him that United and the industry are running out of issues and suggested Congress may as well tack farm labor reform to the farm bill. In fact, he said there is serious consideration in the Senate to attach AgJobs to the farm bill. Well, we know food safety isn't going away, at least.

Veto threat?

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns raised the possibility of a veto by President Bush if the House Agriculture Committee's version of the farm bill becomes law. He stressed, however, that the process was only half done and also offered that their will be some amendments offered on the floor tomorrow that will be pushed by the White House. The White House does not like the fact that the farm bill relies on gimmick savings and may result in a tax increase for some companies, plus other objections. Some reporters questioned Johanns how the Administration would have paid for its version of the farm bill, which was reported at $5 billion over the budget baseline. Reuters coverage of veto threat is here.

Peterson presser

Here is a 10-minute audio link from the House Agriculture Committee lovefest press conference yesterday. You will hear House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson talk about the process. He makes the point that the end product was better than predicted, as he once said everyone may be equally unhappy with the budget-restricted farm bill. While there are things some people wanted more of - farm program reform, more conservation funds, more f/v money - by and large, people are on board. You will also hear the remarks of ranking member Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, remarks from a member from Oregon not on the committee applauding the inclusiveness of this farm bill. Finally, you will hear the remarks of Rep. Dennis Cardoza, who has been so instrumental as chair of the hort subcommittee in securing mandatory funds for f/v priorities.

It is good to see genuine bipartisanship in action for agriculture issues. Now we will see if supporters of the farm bill can herd it through the full House without major changes.

COOL agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tom Stenzel
President - United Fresh Produce Association

Bryan Silbermann
President
Produce Marketing Association

Tangerine tango

Read this blog post about the Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth responding to a question about global warming, food miles ..and tangerines.

From Ben Smith:


The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.
"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.
"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.
Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.
Asked about her comment immediately after the event, John Edwards avoided the question twice, then said he isn't sure.
"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that."
UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate.

TK: Preposterous. There is no way the majority of consumers, including myself, want tangerines from Chile, California or Spain to cost 10 cents more per pound because of some global warming tax, or some other scheme to impose new costs based on "a carbon footprint." Again, perhaps a moment of needed clarity to see where the fuzzy talk of global warming is leading us.