Four ag-related amendments in CR debate
March 14, 2013 | 08:10 PM
As the Senate considers a continuing resolution to fund the government through September 30, four amendments affecting the Agriculture Department are in play, but it is unclear whether or not the Senate will vote on them.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., broke into a quorum call today to explain that the amendments were being discussed behind the scenes.
Mikulski went to great pains to say that the lack of activity on the floor did not mean that the Senate was not working, as amendments were being scrutinized. She added that the Senate would not proceed on floor action “until we see the whole package” of amendments.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mikulski came to the floor about 7 p.m. and announced that agreement had not been reached. They said the Senate would resume deliberation on the measure on Monday, and that there would be intense pressure to move quickly to get the continuing resolution finished by next Friday, when Congress is scheduled to leave for the Easter-Passover break.
Earlier, Mikulski said she and Senate Appropriations ranking member Richard Shelby, R-Ala., believe that the bill could be passed as is, but that senators have the right to amend it. She said the off-the-floor activity should not be viewed as “backroom” dealings but as the regular process of legislation, while Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the amendments should be brought up for votes.
Sen. Jon Tester, R-Mont.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., is the sponsor of amendments to strike two provisions that originated in the House fiscal year 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill and were incorporated into the Senate continuing resolution as part of an agreement to include a bicameral Agriculture appropriations bill in the CR.
In a floor speech Wednesday, Tester called the inclusion of these measures on biotechnology and the Packers and Stockyards Act “backroom deals.”
“Montanans elected me to the Senate to do away with shady backroom deals and to make government work better,” said Tester, who has made improving government openness a hallmark of his time in the Senate. “These provisions are giveaways worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country, and deserve no place in this bill.”
Following are the Agriculture Department amendments under consideration:
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Jim Risch of Idaho and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, would allow Cabinet secretaries to declare some federal employees “essential” and move money within accounts to keep them on the job.
This amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would remove a policy rider that prohibits the Agriculture Department from using its authorities under the Packers and Stockyards Act to address fraudulent, deceptive, and anti-competitive trade practices.
The policy rider, which originated in the House Agriculture appropriations bill but has been included in the Senate CR, would force USDA to rescind existing poultry regulations addressing basic contract fairness standards, which were written under direction of the 2008 farm bill and the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said the rider “is anti-market, anti-competition, and a disaster for farmers around the country.”
NSAC, Food & Water Watch, the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Farmers Union and other groups have formed a coalition in favor of the amendment, and the American Farm Bureau Federation has sent senators a separate letter also supporting it.
Farm Bureau said it opposes the provision in the CR to rescind existing Packers and Stockyards Act regulations because they “provide common-sense transparency, disclosure and capital investment protections for poultry farmers in their contract relationship with poultry companies.”
Farm Bureau added, “These regulations are critical to protect poultry farmers.”
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., would increase farmers’ access to credit by increasing the program level for the USDA Farm Service Agency’s Guaranteed Farm Ownership Loan program from $1.5 billion in the Senate CR to $2 billion included in the House-passed CR.
This change is a no-cost item because the program is funded through user fees and has a negative subsidy rate and the Congressional Budget Office has said that the amendment does not score, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
This amendment, introduced by Tester, Leahy and Demoratic Sens. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, Mark Begich of Alaska and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, would preserve federal court authority to halt the sale or planting of biotechnology products if the courts rule the products have not been adequately reviewed for their economic and environmental impacts.
The Center for Food Safety and other critics of biotechnology favor this amendment on the grounds that the policy rider in the Senate bill removing this power from the court represents “a serious assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system and would negatively impact farmers, the environment and public health across America.”
“The rider would strip federal courts of their authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop and compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request,” the group said.
The center also said in a news release that the amendment “raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Judiciary Committee that merit hearings by the committee before consideration.”
But Farm Bureau opposes this amendment, saying that the provision in the bill “clarifies the secretary of Agriculture’s authority to partially deregulate a biotechnology trait by introducing temporary stewardship requirements that allow farmers to continue to grow and harvest a crop previously deemed safe and deregulated but is being challenged in court.”
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., broke into a quorum call today to explain that the amendments were being discussed behind the scenes.
Mikulski went to great pains to say that the lack of activity on the floor did not mean that the Senate was not working, as amendments were being scrutinized. She added that the Senate would not proceed on floor action “until we see the whole package” of amendments.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mikulski came to the floor about 7 p.m. and announced that agreement had not been reached. They said the Senate would resume deliberation on the measure on Monday, and that there would be intense pressure to move quickly to get the continuing resolution finished by next Friday, when Congress is scheduled to leave for the Easter-Passover break.
Earlier, Mikulski said she and Senate Appropriations ranking member Richard Shelby, R-Ala., believe that the bill could be passed as is, but that senators have the right to amend it. She said the off-the-floor activity should not be viewed as “backroom” dealings but as the regular process of legislation, while Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the amendments should be brought up for votes.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., is the sponsor of amendments to strike two provisions that originated in the House fiscal year 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill and were incorporated into the Senate continuing resolution as part of an agreement to include a bicameral Agriculture appropriations bill in the CR.
In a floor speech Wednesday, Tester called the inclusion of these measures on biotechnology and the Packers and Stockyards Act “backroom deals.”
“Montanans elected me to the Senate to do away with shady backroom deals and to make government work better,” said Tester, who has made improving government openness a hallmark of his time in the Senate. “These provisions are giveaways worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country, and deserve no place in this bill.”
Following are the Agriculture Department amendments under consideration:
Meat inspector furlough avoidance
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Jim Risch of Idaho and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, would allow Cabinet secretaries to declare some federal employees “essential” and move money within accounts to keep them on the job.
Contract fairness in livestock and poultry sectors
This amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would remove a policy rider that prohibits the Agriculture Department from using its authorities under the Packers and Stockyards Act to address fraudulent, deceptive, and anti-competitive trade practices.
The policy rider, which originated in the House Agriculture appropriations bill but has been included in the Senate CR, would force USDA to rescind existing poultry regulations addressing basic contract fairness standards, which were written under direction of the 2008 farm bill and the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said the rider “is anti-market, anti-competition, and a disaster for farmers around the country.”
NSAC, Food & Water Watch, the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Farmers Union and other groups have formed a coalition in favor of the amendment, and the American Farm Bureau Federation has sent senators a separate letter also supporting it.
Farm Bureau said it opposes the provision in the CR to rescind existing Packers and Stockyards Act regulations because they “provide common-sense transparency, disclosure and capital investment protections for poultry farmers in their contract relationship with poultry companies.”
Farm Bureau added, “These regulations are critical to protect poultry farmers.”
Guaranteed Farm Ownership Loan program
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., would increase farmers’ access to credit by increasing the program level for the USDA Farm Service Agency’s Guaranteed Farm Ownership Loan program from $1.5 billion in the Senate CR to $2 billion included in the House-passed CR.
This change is a no-cost item because the program is funded through user fees and has a negative subsidy rate and the Congressional Budget Office has said that the amendment does not score, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Biotechnology review
This amendment, introduced by Tester, Leahy and Demoratic Sens. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, Mark Begich of Alaska and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, would preserve federal court authority to halt the sale or planting of biotechnology products if the courts rule the products have not been adequately reviewed for their economic and environmental impacts.
The Center for Food Safety and other critics of biotechnology favor this amendment on the grounds that the policy rider in the Senate bill removing this power from the court represents “a serious assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system and would negatively impact farmers, the environment and public health across America.”
“The rider would strip federal courts of their authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop and compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request,” the group said.
The center also said in a news release that the amendment “raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Judiciary Committee that merit hearings by the committee before consideration.”
But Farm Bureau opposes this amendment, saying that the provision in the bill “clarifies the secretary of Agriculture’s authority to partially deregulate a biotechnology trait by introducing temporary stewardship requirements that allow farmers to continue to grow and harvest a crop previously deemed safe and deregulated but is being challenged in court.”
