Legislation would extend several agricultural export promotion programs under a new umbrella and adjust several other trade-related activities.
Overcoming Democrat objections over individual eligibility requirements to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the 2018 Farm Bill cleared the House Agriculture Committee Wednesday by a vote of 26-20.
During a markup that lasted almost six hours including recess, lawmakers also approved an amendment to launch a government program to strike down foreign nontariff barriers to U.S. exports of agricultural commodities produced with biotechnology, as well as an amendment providing for expedited review procedures for inclusion of post-harvest handling substances related to food safety on the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances for Organic Farming or Handling Operations.
The committee-approved H.R. 2 would, additionally, consolidate the Market Access Program (MAP), Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMDCP), Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, and E. (Kika) De La Garza Emerging Markets Program under a new umbrella known as the International Market Development Program (IMDP).
Committee members approved an amendment pitched by Rep. Neal Dunn, R-Fla., to establish an Agriculture Department (USDA) program to be known as the “Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program,” which would support advocacy for science-based regulations in foreign markets of biotechnology “or new agricultural production technologies” to address foreign non-tariff barriers affecting U.S. exports of commodities produced with such technology.
Such advocacy would include “quick-response intervention” regarding nontariff barriers against such U.S. exports.
An amendment submitted by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., was adopted that would require the agriculture secretary to develop procedures for expedited review of petitions for food safety-related post-harvest handling substances or classes of such substances to be included on the National List.
The Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 would authorize $255 million for the IMDP in each fiscal year 2019 through 2023, requiring at least $200 million be allocated to the MAP component, at least $34.5 million for the FMDCP component, no more than $9 million for the specialty crops component, and no more than $10 million for the emerging markets component.
Such trade promotion programs would continue to be supported through commercial export credit guarantees and direct credits from the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The bill also sets forth several adjustments for the Food for Peace Program, which is administered through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and is the U.S. government’s largest provider of overseas food assistance.
Language would require program-administered food purchased in other countries to include, “to the extent practicable,” appropriate markings on packages and containers of food purchased outside the U.S. or “on printed material that accompanies other assistance,” noting that the food was furnished by the U.S., in the language of “the locality” where such commodities and other assistance are distributed.
The 2018 Farm Bill also seeks to reauthorize minimum levels of commodities available for emergency and non-emergency assistance through 2023, according to a committee summary of the legislation.
The legislation would require USAID to issue regulations and revisions to agency guidance necessary to implement the bill within 270 days of its enactment, the summary says.
T he deadline for agreements to finance Food for Peace sales or other assistance would be extended from Dec. 31, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2023.
USDA’s Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole food aid programs would be reauthorized through 2023 under the act, according to the summary.
Lawmakers voted to adopt an amendment proposed by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to allow for transporters, distributers, trade associations, government entities and others who experience economic losses due to the agriculture regulations of any state they don’t reside in, to file lawsuits in federal court to seek damages.
The language also would require federal courts to honor plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction to prevent the applicable state or unit of local government from enforcing the troublesome regulation until the court enters a final judgment, unless the state or unit of local government proves by “clear and convincing evidence” that the regulatory entity is likely to prevail on merits at trial and that the injunction would “cause irreparable harm” to it.
The amendment specifically states that no state or local government may impose requirements on the production of any agricultural product sold or offered in interstate commerce if such a requirement “is in addition to” standards and conditions applicable to such production or manufacture pursuant to federal, state, and local law production or manufacture occurs in another state and if such requirements.
The King amendment survived an attempt to overturn it via an amendment by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., who acknowledged some opposition to California egg cage standards, but asserted that the King-proposed language would prevent states from acting to regulate on invasive pests, food and product safety, animal disease testing, and agricultural inspections, among other areas.
Denham’s amendment would have directed a USDA study examining how state laws regarding agricultural production, sale and labeling of agriculture products, and detection and prevention of invasive pests impact interstate commerce.
The committee also adopted a Dunn amendment to require the executive branch to, within 180 days of enactment, submit to Congress a report on imports of dogs, to include an estimate of the number of dogs imported annually, including those imported for resale and those that were imported for resale but denied because the importation failed to meet certain Animal Welfare Act requirements.
The report would be required to include recommendations by the Agriculture Secretary for federal statutory changes “determined to be necessary for such importation for resale to meet the requirements of such section,” the bill text states.
The office of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., didn’t respond to a question on when the full House might consider the legislation.
“We’ll continue fighting, we won’t settle for the status quo because America needs a farm bill. America deserves a farm bill,” committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said in a statement following the markup. “And I look forward to taking this vote to the people’s House — to debating these policies on the floor and to sharing our vision with the American people. We have cleared this hurdle and will deliver a strong, new farm bill on time.”
House Ag Committee clears 2018 Farm Bill
