This week brought to light the tale of two very conflicting farm bills. There was the House-passed version that NCBA supported – that version contained all of our priorities – and the Bill the Senate-House Conferees released on Monday – which NCBA could not support.
The original House version would have revised the Freedom of Information Act provisions and prevented EPA from releasing producer’s personal information. We have long maintained that producers and their families live at their place of business and to turn address, telephone numbers and, in some cases, geographic coordinates over to anyone who has a computer is in effect reckless and poses serious agro-terrorism threats. Legislation preventing EPA from implementing the Spill Convention Control and Countermeasure rule was included that would put an end to forcing costly containment plans on all ag producers regardless of size. It also included language that would have ended the debate on the GIPSA provisions, leaving producers the freedom to operate and market in ways that serve their bottom line. The House bill contained the King Amendment to protect interstate commerce, and prevented states from implementing costly production mandates on all of agriculture. And of course, permanent disaster assistance was included, providing relief for states hard hit by flooding, drought, snow and wildfire.
Our heavy lift in the Senate came not on what was in their bill, but what was not in the bill. Namely, the HSUS/UEP agreement or “egg-bill” that would have, for the first time, Congressionally mandated production standards on a segment of animal agriculture. We believe that producers are the best care-takers for their livestock and the ability to adapt and improve management practices cannot continuously improve if it is mandated in statute. This agreement had no place in legislation and would have handed HSUS a major win. We appreciate actions taken by the Senate to keep this language out of the base bill.
The other farm bill was the bill that was released Monday by the Senate-House conference committee. In evaluating the bill, solutions to our long-term regulatory concerns were not included. Additionally, we are disappointed a World Trade Organization-compliant resolution to address mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling was not included, particularly in the face of retaliatory actions by the governments of Mexico and Canada. COOL was originally created in the 2002 Farm Bill and has been a failure by every measure. The WTO has ruled on multiple occasions that the U.S. mandatory COOL policy violates WTO standards and if not resolved, Mexico and Canada will be forced to retaliate against the U.S. beef industry. Mexico and Canada are two of our largest export markets for U.S. beef.
That is why our officer team made the decision to oppose the farm bill conference report. It was a difficult decision, but we needed to make the decision that was best for the long-term profitability of the cattle industry. We had a golden opportunity to fix many of these issues. These issues that were created by Congress, need to be addressed by Congress, and that did not happen. It is not the way anyone involved wanted this issue to end. But the truth is in Washington, these issues do not ever end. We will continue to serve our members and carry out our policy priorities and we look forward to continuing to work with our friends in Congress.
Source: Scott George, NCBA President