States need to have a larger role in implementing the Endangered Species Act, three heads of state wildlife agencies told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at a hearing.“State fish and wildlife directors generally believe the ESA is not performing as it should and is not sufficiently leveraging state agency expertise and cooperation,” Nick Wiley, executive director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, told the EPW committee. “Combined, our nation’s 50 state fish and wildlife agencies are a formidable wildlife conservation machine,” Barrasso said, citing statistics showing that the state agencies employ 11,000 wildlife biologists, a figure that Voyles said was nearly equal to the entire workforce of the Fish and Wildlife Service.But ranking minority member Tom Carper, D-Del., said his understanding is that states spend about one quarter of what FWS invests to protect listed and candidate species. “If we include all federal agency spending, the collective state investment is about 4 percent,” he said. “Granted, this likely means we need to invest more in our states. But it also means that states have some soul-searching to do.”
The Trump administration is delaying for six months a rule that would require organic meat and egg producers to abide by stricter animal welfare standards. Former President Barack Obama’s Agriculture Department announced the rule two days before he left office in January. The regulations are designed to ensure that organically grown livestock have enough space to lie down, turn around, stand up and fully stretch their limbs. Poultry would have enough room to move freely and spread their wings. Beaks couldn’t be removed and cattle tails couldn’t be cut. Living conditions would have to include fresh air, proper ventilation and direct sunlight.The rule was originally scheduled to go into effect in March. President Donald Trump’s USDA has delayed that to May and will now delay it another six months until Nov. 14, saying in an online notice that “there are significant policy and legal issues addressed within the final rule that warrant further review by USDA.”
A tough U.S. proposal on bilateral sugar trade with Mexico sets a bad precedent for an impending renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the head of Mexico's sugar chamber, Juan Cortina, said on Tuesday. The U.S. sugar industry pressed the Commerce Department late last year to withdraw from a 2014 trade agreement that sets prices and quota for U.S. imports of Mexican sugar unless the deal could be renegotiated.The new proposal for modifying the 2014 agreement, which seeks to increase minimum prices for refined Mexican sugar and adjust quality requirements, would essentially push Mexican exporters out of the U.S. market, said Cortina, who sits on the Mexican negotiating team.Bilateral trade relations are under strain as U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to renegotiate the NAFTA pact with Mexico and Canada and to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it."This is a very bad precedent for upcoming (NAFTA) negotiations if we can't reach an agreement," said Cortina, speaking at a news conference
Growers and farmworker unions said Tuesday that a federal immigration crackdown in rural towns is scaring away workers and forcing cutbacks in production of hand-harvested produce. “Wherever I go in California — I was just up in the wine industry — when I talk to dairy farmers, when I talk to small farmers in the Bay Area, even some in the Central Valley, they tell me they can’t find workers,” Feinstein said on a conference call with reporters. “That workers are scared, that they’re afraid they’re going to be picked up and deported, that they have disappeared.”
This report identifies actions we are taking at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to meet the challenge of advancing agricultural trade, improving service delivery to agricultural producers, and addressing the needs of Rural America. These steps are part of a broader on-going review of the Department based on the President’s March 13, 2017; Executive Order 13781 entitled “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch.” Section 3208 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-70 (7 USC §6935) requires the Secretary of Agriculture (“Secretary”) to propose a reorganization of international trade functions for imports and exports, including a plan for the establishment of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs (U/Sec TFAA). The Secretary is required to submit to the Congressional committees specified in Section 3208 (a) a report that includes the results of this proposal and provides a notice of the reorganization plan.
Illegal immigration across the southwestern border is down a stunning 76 percent since President Trump was elected, with the flow of children and families dropping even faster as analysts say the administration’s commitment to enforcing the law has changed the reality along the border. Overall apprehensions by the Border Patrol dropped to just 11,129 in April, according to numbers released Tuesday, marking the lowest monthly total for any month in decades.The number of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children nabbed at the border dropped below 1,000 — a level not seen since before the surge that bedeviled President Obama during most of his second term.
U.S. citrus exports to Europe are expected to increase following a change in citrus canker safeguard rules.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and Acting U.S. Trade Representative Stephen Vaughn on May 3 said the European Union has dropped requirement that U.S. groves be surveyed for citrus canker. That, according to a news release, will make it easier to ship U.S. citrus to the EU and save growers production costs. The new EU directive requires countries where citrus canker has been detected to have a disease management program and to ensure that exported fruit have no symptoms, according to the release. Because grove surveys for citrus canker will no longer be required, the USDA said that U.S. producers can save an estimated $5.6 million dollars per year, according to the release.
Recent stricter implementation of immigrant control policies has resulted in the deportation of some undocumented immigrants (Escalante, Yu, and Li, 2016). At the same time, employment verification systems and monitored hiring procedures have been established and enforced, as have harsher sanctions (involving higher civil fines and criminal penalties) for employers who violate the law (Smith and Sugimori, 2015). However, even with the intensified immigration control enforcement efforts, the share of undocumented workers dropped in only a few industries, such as construction. As the country’s new leaders contemplate introducing significant changes to the previous administration’s health care policies, the social imperative requires policy-makers to optimally allocate medical resources and promote the health welfare of all agricultural workers. To answer these questions, we first compare the health care utilization patterns of green card and undocumented farm workers with those of citizen farm workers who may be less constrained in accessing health services and benefits. The increasing immigrant population in the United States has created strong public sentiment due to the adverse effect on the adequacy and cost of social welfare programs (Borjas 1999). Given the implementation of public health reforms (e.g., the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) and stringent immigration enforcement (e.g., E-verify mandates), do immigrants enjoy access to health care services and rates comparable to those enjoyed by U.S. citizens? We answer this question by investigating farm workers’ choices among health care provider alternatives and the payment methods they use to settle health care bills. Based on legal status and demographic characteristics, farm workers may have diverse preferences for health care providers and methods of payment.
Proposed legislative changes to meat and poultry inspection services in various states could make those programs inconsistent with federal requirements, the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) said in a letter to state meat and poultry inspection directors. State inspection programs must be found to be “at least equal to” the federal program on nine components: statutory authority and food safety regulations, inspection, product sampling programs, staffing, training and supervision, humane handling, compliance, laboratory methods and quality assurance programs, civil rights, and financial accountability.“Most of the draft legislation we have seen exempts from requiring inspection and labeling certain types of food products, including meat and poultry, depending on the manner and place of sale and the type of purchaser or end consumer. Some of these proposed exemptions appear to be consistent with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements, but many do not,” Carl Mayes, assistant administrator for the FSIS Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit said, in the letter.FSIS listed examples where state bills differ from federal requirements:-- State legislation exempting from inspection and regulation the processing of meat and meat products by producers or other business, other than retail stores and restaurants, for sale to consumers who have been informed that the products were processed without inspection.-- State legislation that exempts from state inspection poultry producers that slaughter or prepare 1,000 or fewer birds for intrastate sales, but does not specifically require the producer who raised the poultry also to slaughter them.-- State legislation that would allow rental contracts between certain poultry producers and slaughterhouses, making the rental slaughterhouses exempt from state inspection.-- State legislation that would amend a state’s definition of “custom” slaughter and processing to eliminate periodic state review of sanitation and wholesomeness for products produced by these operations. Eliminating these reviews would call into question compliance with federal sanitation requirements for custom slaughter and processing establishments exempt from mandatory inspection.-- State legislation that would permit the slaughtering of livestock and direct sale of meat to consumers who are members of a “herd share” or similar organization that might, in turn, resell the meat. Such a provision would not be permitted under federal custom slaughter exemption provisions, because it does not limit the sale of the livestock to consumers for their personal use.
About half of the 675 immigrants picked up in roundups across the United States in the days after President Trump took office either had no criminal convictions or had committed traffic offenses, mostly drunken driving, as their most serious crimes, according to data obtained by The Washington Post.Records provided by congressional aides Friday offered the most detailed look yet at the backgrounds of the individuals rounded up and targeted for deportation in early February by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents assigned to regional offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio and New York.Two people had been convicted of homicide, 80 had been convicted of assault, and 57 had convictions for “dangerous drugs.” Many of the most serious criminals were given top billing in ICE news statements about the operation.The largest single group — 163 immigrants convicted of traffic offenses — was mentioned only briefly. Over 90 percent of those cases involved drunken driving, ICE said Friday. Of those taken into custody in the raids, 177 had no criminal convictions at all, though 66 had charges pending, largely immigration or traffic offenses.The raids were part of a nationwide immigration roundup dubbed Operation Cross Check, which accounts for a small portion of the 21,362 immigrants the Trump administration took into custody for deportation proceedings from January through mid-March.