Senate Agriculture Committee leadership has shown that the farm bill can and should remain a bipartisan affair. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) have, true to their word, worked together to produce a bill that includes much-needed policy improvements and funding increases that will help drive the sustainability of American agriculture. The Senate bill stands in stark contrast to its companion in the House, which moved out of committee along completely partisan lines and was denounced by many farm and food advocates before it was defeated on the House floor. We are pleased, for example, that unlike the House companion bill, the Senate Committee’s draft bill makes no cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for low-income Americans. The draft bill scales up investments for farm-to-fork initiatives and beginning and socially disadvantaged farmer programs, and makes important policy improvements to crop insurance and conservation programs. It also fails, however, to make meaningful reforms to farm subsidy programs to limit economic and farm concentration, and includes significant cuts to critical working lands conservation programs. In all, we believe the bill produced by Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow offers a good starting point for farm bill negotiations in the Senate. We look forward to actively working with our members and with our allies in the Senate to pass a bill that protects and supports American family farmers.
In 2016, 44.1 percent of the 43.5 million Americans participating in USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were children (age 17 and younger), 44.1 percent were working-age adults (age 18-59) and 11.8 percent were elderly. Eligibility for SNAP benefits is based on income and asset limits, subject to certain immigration status and work requirements. In addition, able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49, who are not caring for dependents, are required to work or participate in a work training program for at least 20 hours per week to receive SNAP benefits for more than 3 months in a 36-month period. The age composition of SNAP participants has changed over time in response to economic conditions, legislative modifications, and demographic trends. The job losses that accompanied the 2007-09 recession and the slow recovery resulted in more working-age adults becoming eligible for benefits and seeking assistance. Working-age adults’ share of the SNAP caseload rose from 42.4 percent in 2007 to 44.4 percent in 2009.
Kittens and cupcakes in the Rayburn building caused a buzz Thursday among staffers and interns, but the reason for their presence was anything but a cute ball of fluff. For the past 50 years, the Department of Agriculture has been forcing 100 kittens each year to eat toxoplasma-infected raw meat to test their stool, according to Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Bishop. The parasite causes toxoplasmosis and is found only in cat feces, putting the brunt of these experiments on kittens. They are needed to breed the parasite, which is then studied, according to a report by watchdog group the White Coat Waste Project. Researchers later kill the kittens because they are deemed unfit for adoption given the potential health hazards they could cause owners, according to a USDA Agricultural Research Service spokesperson. The spokesperson called the estimation of 100 cats per year used in experiments a “serious over-estimation” and said the cats are essential to this sort of research.
esides providing healthy and affordable food, dairy farmers are the backbone of a substantial contributor to the U.S. economy. America’s dairy products industry creates an economic ripple effect that is responsible for $24.9 billion in state and local business tax revenues and $39.5 billion in federal business tax revenues. It supports nearly three million workers, generates more than $39 billion in direct wages and has an overall economic impact of more than $628 billion. But this year, June has our dairy farmers more than a little on edge. Just a few days ago, they received news that their biggest foreign customer, Mexico, is threatening retaliatory tariffs on cheese, among other agricultural products. If these are enacted, the impacts could be detrimental to the industry. Like much of American agriculture, it is highly dependent on exports, especially with our NAFTA partners.
This is the draft of the Senate Agricuture Committee Farm Bill
In retaliatory move, Mexico targets American farm products, including pork, cheese, apples, potatoes, whiskey and cranberries
The U.S. Senate is set to vote next week on its version of the Farm Bill. The legislation is pitting Midwestern lawmakers against Southern lawmakers over two competing subsidy programs that both say are essential to farmers in their regions. The debate over the Farm Bill is always contentious. It usually pits Democrats against Republicans. But this issue has lawmakers from different regions battling each other. In the South, crops like rice and peanuts need a lot of water and fertilizer. Yields are comparatively steady but subject to steep fluctuations in world markets. In the fertile soils of the Midwest -- where corn and soy are king -- farmers need less fertilizer and irrigation but are more susceptible to bad weather conditions. The differences have led to a split between lawmakers vying for resources in the 2018 Farm Bill. "In Congress, you a lot about Democrats and Republicans fighting each other. You get into things like the Farm Bill and it doesn't have anything to do with Democrats and Republicans, it has to do with regional agriculture," explains Sen. John Boozman (R-AR). Sen. Boozman says his state relies on a program known as the PLC (Price Loss Coverage) that provides subsidies to farmers if crop prices drop. Farmers in the Midwest prefer the ARC (Agriculture Risk Coverage) program which bases its subsidies on crop revenues. During Farm Bill negotiations, Southern lawmakers say their Midwestern counterparts sought to boost the ARC program by depleting PLC."
The U.S. Supreme Court today split 4-4 and will let stand a lower-court order requiring Washington to remove hundreds of culverts to protect tribal fishing rights, an order that farm groups warn will bolster legal challenges to dams and irrigation systems. The tie, made possible by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recusal, is a victory for 21 Western Washington tribes that had previously prevailed in U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Washington appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the order misinterpreted the Stevens Treaties, which the tribes signed in 1854 and 1855.Several Western states, including Idaho, had filed briefs urging the high court to overturn the culvert-removal order. The Washington, Oregon and Idaho Farm Bureaus also filed briefs, echoing the states’ concerns.Former Justice Department lawyer Nathanael Watson, who litigated tribal cases, said the tie vote improves the negotiating position
Something that nobody wanted has started – a trade war. At least nobody on the south side of the Rio Grande wanted it, because on the other side it seems that it was wanted. In response to tariffs on steel and aluminum, the Mexican government has decided to impose several tariffs on various American farm products. For many, that was a lukewarm response, or even timid, very timid, since Mexico "punished" the U.S. with tariffs on cranberries (how many cranberries do Mexicans eat?) and bourbon (maybe we do consume more this, but I doubt it is consumed more than tequila). Corn? In 2016, Mexico imported 54,500 metric tons of corn from Brazil. By 2017, this figure increased to 583,200 metric tons, and in the first quarter of 2018 it is already at 107,000 metric tons.
As more than a million Americans face losing food stamps under President Trump’s vision for reauthorizing the farm bill, his vow to wean families off dependence doesn’t apply to thousands of others who have been relying much of their adult lives on payments from the government’s sprawling agriculture program.And many of those farmers have been getting aid for far longer than the average 10 months that a food stamp recipient gets help. In fact, 27,930 farmers have been collecting for 32 years, a report shows. The assistance is supposed to keep their farming operations afloat, but it flows in good years and bad.