Government Executive - Authors - Jerry Hagstrom

A Fight is Growing Over Food Labels

Jerry Hagstrom, National Journal — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:16:20 -0400

Food labeling suddenly has become the summer rage in Congress.

On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would stop states from labeling foods with genetically modified organisms and would establish a voluntary "non-GMO" label at the federal level. The same day, senators introduced one bill that would repeal country-of-origin labeling for beef, pork, and chicken, and another that would repeal most mandatory meat labeling and establish a federal voluntary label for the same products.

The labeling bills reflect several factors: consumers' increased interest in what they eat, competition within the food industry—and the difficulties of government at all levels in making the labels work.

First, the issue of genetic modification or, the term scientists prefer, genetic engineering. Ever since scientists figured out how to take a gene from one species and engineer it into another to introduce a trait such as resistance to an herbicide, the idea has scared some people. But the Food and Drug Administration has said that foods made from genetically modified corn, canola, soybeans, and cotton are not materially different from the non-GMO products and therefore don't require labels.

This view hasn't satisfied some consumer advocates or owners of organic-food businesses who want mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically modified ingredients. Ballot initiatives to require labeling failed in California and other states, but Vermont passed a mandatory GMO-labeling law that is scheduled to be enforced in July 2016. Connecticut and Maine have passed laws that will go into effect if neighboring states pass the same law.

Food companies' private studies apparently show that at least some consumers would reject food with a label that it "contains genetically modified ingredients." As one lobbyist put it, "We want to label everything we can 'non-GMO' and not label the products with GMOs."

Big food—as critics call the conventional food industry—spent millions of dollars to fight each initiative, winning most of them. It tried to stop the Vermont law in the courts, but has failed so far. The prospect that the Vermont law might go into effect led the industry to convince Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas, to introduce a bill that would establish a program at the Agriculture Department to allow companies to apply for a "non-GMO" label on foods that contain no genetically modified ingredients. The bill would stop states from establishing mandatory GMO-labeling programs on the grounds that one already exists at the federal level.

The Pompeo bill passed the House by a vote of 275-150, with 45 Democrats joining 230 Republicans in favor of it.

With that kind of margin, you'd think the Senate would follow the House. But so far the Senate doesn't even have a GMO bill to consider. Sen. John Hoeven, a Republican from North Dakota, is working on a bill but says he has to figure out how to write it to attract a Democratic cosponsor and the 60 votes that would be needed to end debate.

Now, for the issue of country-of-origin meat labeling: The United States has had a country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law for certain products since 2002, although it has only been enforced in recent years. The origin of the issue is because of an odd phenomenon: Cattle and pigs are raised in Canada and Mexico, but slaughtered in the United States. The law came into existence in part because of consumer pressure but also because some beef and pork producers, particularly in the Dakotas, Montana, Minnesota, and Wyoming, believed that slaughterhouses took advantage of the availability of Canadian and Mexican cattle and pigs whenever U.S. animal prices got high.

The Canadian and Mexican governments reacted to the law by taking a case to the World Trade Organization that the U.S. law discriminated against Canadian and Mexican cattle and hog producers because U.S. slaughterhouses said they had to segregate the foreign animals from the American animals to comply with the labeling law, and either bought smaller numbers of Canadian and Mexican animals or refused to buy them at all. The WTO sided with Canada and Mexico, and the United States now is under pressure to comply with the WTO complaint or face punitive tariffs on a range of products.

The House has voted to repeal COOL, not only for the beef and pork that were the subject of the WTO case, but also for chicken and ground meat. But once again, the road is tougher in the Senate. The very same Hoeven who is working on the GMO-labeling bill is the one who last Wednesday introduced, with Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member and Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, a bill to follow the House on repeal and establish a voluntary meat-labeling program at USDA.

"That's just reasonable because that's what Canada does," Hoeven said, referring to a Canadian voluntary "Product of Canada" label.

But the Canadian government maintains that even a voluntary U.S. government label would cause packers to continue to segregate and discriminate. The same day that Hoeven introduced his bill, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas introduced a bill calling only for repeal on the grounds that Canada and Mexico still would seek retaliation.

If Hoeven can get both restrictions on GMO labeling and voluntary country-of-origin meat labeling into law, he will be a hero in some quarters and a go-to strategist.

But with the food industry split, passage of these bills will be difficult, and the issue of labeling won't go away.

]]>

How Obama's EPA Is Making Life Difficult for Clinton

Jerry Hagstrom, National Journal — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:00:00 -0400

DES MOINES—The biggest takeaways from the GOP-dominated Iowa Ag Summit here this weekend may be the opportunity that the Renewable Fuel Standard offers Hillary Clinton to address income inequality and the danger that the Obama administration's dithering management of the RFS may pose to her quest for the presidency.

Clinton is said to have identified income inequality as the defining issue for 2016 and to be looking for ways to reduce it.

Clinton wasn't in Iowa for the summit, of course. Only Republican candidates chose to participate in the day-long event organized by Bruce Rastetter, a wealthy Iowa agribusinessman, philanthropist and Republican donor. When Rastetter interviewed the candidates, there were no surprises. All the major candidates endorsed the RFS except Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

But Rastetter and Iowa officials used the summit to make the case that the RFS brings higher paying jobs to remote areas of Iowa, allowing people to remain in their home towns and raise their families there.

Former Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, the only Democrat to speak at the event, said that since Congress passed the RFS in 2005 and expanded it in 2007 ethanol and other renewable fuel plants have been built "in every corner of the state." Today 73,000 Iowans work in renewable fuels, earning $5 million in wages in jobs that are superior to most in small towns, with a total economic impact of $13 million, Judge said.

All the arguments against the RFS—that it damages car engines, raises food prices and causes more harm to the environment than fossil fuels—are lies promoted by "Big Oil," said Judge, who now co-chairs America's Renewable Future, a group set up to promote the RFS in Iowa's 2016 presidential caucuses.

"Let's make certain whoever wins this Iowa caucus is going to be someone who sides with us," she concluded.

Iowa Republican Gov. Terry Branstad also presented a glowing account of the renewable fuels industry. But Branstad shifted the conversation to point out that Iowa and the renewable fuels industry have not felt well treated by the Obama administration since late 2013 when the Environmental Protection Agency initially proposed reducing the volumetric requirements for blending in 2014. Amidst industry protest, the EPA withdrew that proposal and said it would wait until 2015 to issue the requirements for 2014 and 2015, but those blending volumes still haven't come out.

This indecision has come as a shock to the renewable fuels industry because Obama supported the RFS as an Illinois senator and presidential candidate. In 2010 Obama's EPA thrilled the industry by authorizing the sale of E15, a fuel with more ethanol than the 10 percent contained in most gasoline. Then came the proposed pull back on blending.

In Branstad's words, "candidate Obama embraced renewable fuels," then "tried to gut the RFS" and now has "decided to punt on the issue."

Branstad said the uncertainty caused by the EPA and the Obama administration over the RFS "has caused the price of corn to plummet well below the cost of production." As a result, Branstad said, the value of farm land has dropped 9 percent, the largest decrease since 1986, and John Deere, an equipment manufacturer, is laying off workers.

Branstad exaggerates the case. Lower gasoline use and rising food prices led the administration to rethink the volumetric requirements, and the EPA's conclusion won't be known until the final rule is out. Big crops and decreased Chinese exports also played a rule in the fall of corn prices and led to the lower demand for new farm equipment.

But the indecision over the RFS gives Branstad and other Republicans the opening to ask whether any Democratic president can be trusted to manage the RFS.

Under questioning from Rastetter, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he would support the RFS "absolutely. The law requires it." He added that any "competent" president would have already implemented the volumetric requirements.

The RFS was only one of many issues the candidates had with the EPA and Obama.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said the EPA is "a pig in slop. We have to begin to rein in this top-down driven regulatory system. The first thing you do is change presidents."

The Republican candidates from out of state did not, however, express the same understanding of the importance of the RFS to jobs and the well being of rural Iowa. That would seem to leave an opening for Clinton if Iowa voters think a Democrat can be trusted with the RFS.

Clinton herself has had her own tortured experience with ethanol. New York is a state that has to import corn from other states to feed its dairy cattle, and as a senator Clinton voted against the RFS on the grounds that it might raise feed prices. But before she ran for president she started promoting the construction of ethanol and biodiesel plants in New York and declared her support for the RFS.

Obama, who won the Iowa caucus in 2008, used this change of position against her, asking whether she would "shift back" if the battles over ethanol get hard.

Now Clinton may have to contend with Obama's own shifting.

Tom Buis, the CEO of Growth Energy, which represents ethanol plant builders and managers, said here Saturday that the Obama administration could still recover its reputation with the renewable fuels industry if it issues final volumetric requirements that the industry finds acceptable. The administration has "heard loud and clear they got it wrong," Buis said.

Neutralizing rural Iowans' discontent with EPA could help Clinton, who does seem to be onto something with her concern about income inequality.

As Republican Rep. Rod Blum, who won a Democratic-held seat in the House in 2014, told the summit in his defense of the RFS, "I won on raising the wages of families."

]]>

USDA Chief Unveils Campaign to Combat Childhood Hunger

Jerry Hagstrom, National Journal — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:51:33 -0500

While Republicans on Capitol Hill attempt to rein in food stamps and roll back some of the healthier-school-meals rules that have been put in place during the Obama administration, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is organizing a new effort to curb childhood hunger and improve nutrition in some of the poorest areas of the country.

In an interview Wednesday, Vilsack talked about new grant programs he is unveiling this month, portraying this push as a comprehensive campaign to make sure the next generation of American children is well educated enough that they can work smartly and spend their lives doing something besides buying imports from China.

"There is a reformulation of the American economy taking place in which we are moving from a great reliance on consumption to a more balanced approach between what we can make, create, and innovate and what we consume," Vilsack said. "That kind of economy requires all hands on deck. It requires the future generations to be prepared."

"We have kids who want to participate in that economy, but they are not going to be able to if they are too hungry to learn, or they are concerned about their weight and their self-image such that they just aren't paying attention to the science and get discouraged. Nutrition is linked to success."

But amid the lofty rhetoric, Vilsack also said he is afraid House Republicans may want to fit the food-stamp program—formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—into an "arbitrary" budget number and to provide schools with "flexibility" that could lead them to stop serving meals that are lower in fat and sodium and include whole grains and fruits and vegetables.

Vilsack made it clear he is proud that the Obama administration has increased the percentage of people eligible for SNAP who are getting benefits from 72 percent to 83 percent, and that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 promoted by first lady Michelle Obama has improved the quality of school meals.

"Clearly, steps have been taken in the last six years to not only reduce childhood hunger but also to improve the nutritional quality of the meals of kids who are getting help," Vilsack said. Those steps—including increasing access to SNAP, improving school meals, and updating the kinds of foods that low-income mothers can buy through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC—have addressed candidate Obama's 2008 campaign pledge to end childhood hunger by 2015.

But Vilsack acknowledged that there are still gaps, particularly in rural areas, and he said he hopes some new initiatives will help.

This week, Vilsack announced $27 million in five grants to try new ways to reduce childhood hunger. The Chickasaw Nation, an Indian tribe in Oklahoma, will provide food through home delivery to households with children who qualify for free school meals. Kentucky will test providing households with children an additional transportation deduction that may increase their SNAP benefits. The Navajo Nation, which extends across Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, will evaluate gaps in food access in remote rural areas. Nevada will test the effect on SNAP households with children of an increase in benefits and an increase in benefits plus additional education. Virginia will test the impact of providing three school meals per day to all children in some schools, providing food for weekends and school breaks, and providing resources for low-income households to buy food in the summer, when children are not getting fed in school.

On Friday, in San Antonio, Vilsack will announce grant funding for school equipment, which he hopes will reduce the complaints from some school food-service directors that they don't have the equipment to prepare healthier meals. Most of the schools that have complained are in rural areas, Vilsack said, adding that he believes he can pair schools that have succeeded with struggling schools so they can make the changes they need.

Later this month, Vilsack will announce an increase in summer school-feeding grants to increase the total number of summer meals served to children from 187 million in 2014 to 200 million in 2015.

And, perhaps most importantly, Vilsack will announce grants to 10 states to help SNAP beneficiaries find work. Those grants were included in the 2014 farm bill in reaction to Republican demands that ways should be found to get people off SNAP. "People who are able-bodied want to work. They may have barriers in transportation, lack of training," Vilsack said.

"This is the right way to reduce the cost of the SNAP program," he said.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway of Texas has begun a "top-to-bottom" review of SNAP that he says may last several years. Vilsack said those hearings have been "respectful," but he fears that Republicans who don't serve on the Agriculture Committee will focus only on how to save money.

Vilsack's self-styled "comprehensive approach" can be dismissed as just a bunch of grant announcements packaged together during National Nutrition Month. But the real value of his campaign so late in the Obama administration may be to energize the antihunger and nutrition advocates who worked so hard to pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and to defend SNAP in the farm bill. The advocates were demoralized by successful Republican attacks in the 2014 elections and now face tough battles on Capitol Hill.

"There is a success story here," Vilsack said. The Agriculture Department is prepared to address problems in SNAP and in the schools, he said, "but we ought not to be sacrificing the progress that's been made. This is an effort to make sure every kid is prepared to be contributing to this incredibly transforming economy."

]]>

EPA Chief Won't Ditch the Waters Rule, But She Is Digging for Answers

Jerry Hagstrom, National Journal — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:49:01 -0400

Is it worth the effort for an Environmental Protection Agency administrator in a Democratic administration to meet with her farm, ranch, and Republican critics?

Or should she stay safely among her environmental and conservation supporters in Washington and the coastal cities and just push ahead?

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who is under fire in rural America for a "Waters of the United States" rule that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed in April, has been making the effort, with a trip to Missouri early in July and a meeting last week with Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee who have been asking for a sit-down since May.

The outreach hasn't stopped the criticism, but McCarthy told me in an interview Thursday that she feels the effort has been worth it. McCarthy said the trip to Missouri was "a signal that this rule is very important to EPA." On Capitol Hill she said she learned that "EPA speaks with a lot of technical language and science. It is not readily translated into what is clear on the ground for the farm community."

WOTUS, as the rule is being called in environmental and agricultural circles, would define the scope of waters protected under the 1972 Clean Water Act following two Supreme Court decisions that said the feds had to come up with a more scientific basis for deciding what water bodies come under their jurisdiction. The point of the rule is to make sure that the nation's drinking water is safe from discharges of pollution. The biggest point of contention is a provision that says EPA and the Army Corps would be allowed to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to regulate wetlands and other waters that are not directly connected to running streams and rivers but have "a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas."

Farm and ranch leaders who examined the rule immediately said they feared the provision could require them to obtain government permits for activities in which they have long engaged as a regular part of their businesses—and that because the determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis, the proposal creates a great deal of uncertainty about their future operations. EPA also issued an "interpretative rule" that tried to define farm practices that would be exempt from regulation, but that only made farmers think about what practices were not included and worry they would come under regulation.

The ensuing battle can be summed up in one word: ditches. Farmers and ranchers say EPA wants to regulate all their ditches that may fill up with water at some point during the year. The Republican-leaning American Farm Bureau Federation has called on McCarthy to "ditch the rule."

On the trip to a farm in Missouri and in a speech to the Kansas City Agribusiness Council, McCarthy said she wanted to "ditch the myths" about the rule, but her critics weren't satisfied. The farm federation reacted to her Missouri trip by sending Congress a document "decoding" point-by-point an EPA blog post that attempted to explain the rule. The Republican senators she met with issued a series of news releases saying they appreciated her visit but EPA should still withdraw the rule.

Bills have been introduced in Congress to require EPA to withdraw the rule, but they are unlikely to go anywhere, at least as long as Democrats control the Senate and President Obama backs the rule. In any case EPA and the Army Corps are under pressure from the courts to define their jurisdiction. That means EPA is likely to proceed with the rule, although McCarthy said she won't finish it until next year after her staff has analyzed all the comments due by October and received a study from a scientific advisory panel.

In the meantime, McCarthy could work a bit on her own communication skills in rural America. EPA administrators tend not to come from the heartland, and McCarthy is no exception. A Boston native, McCarthy speaks with a strong New England accent and she seems not to suffer fools gladly.

In a telephone news conference before she left for Missouri, McCarthy said: "We're hearing some concerns that are just ludicrous.… Some say EPA will regulate small, unconnected waters ... including puddles on lawns, driveways, and playgrounds. That's just silly. This proposal is all about protecting waters that science tells us have a significant impact to downstream water quality. No more, no less."

And she concluded, "Some say that our proposal means you need a permit to walk cattle across a stream. That's not true. If cattle cross a wet field or stream, that's a 'normal farming practice.' All normal farming practices are exempt, period. We don't shrink current exemptions—we expand them."

McCarthy's use of "ludicrous" and "silly" were not off the cuff, but included in the prepared remarks that her office later distributed to reporters. The words created more fodder for critics such as Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who said in a post-meeting news release, "Farmers and ranchers had hoped they would be able to persuade you to recognize the far reaching and negative impacts of the proposed and interpretive rules, but the reports back have not been positive. To hear that their concerns were categorized as 'silly' or 'ludicrous' is truly frustrating."

In the interview, McCarthy said that she regretted only that people did not understand the context and that she used the terms "ludicrous" and "silly" to refer to statements mischaracterizing the rule that did not come from farmers and ranchers. "I want to make sure the agriculture community and every farmer realizes we take this really seriously. We need to focus on serious issues," she said.

The strongest signal that McCarthy and EPA still have some explaining to do is that after McCarthy held a telephone conversation with the board of the Democratic-leaning National Farmers Union, the group signaled it was not satisfied by sending McCarthy a letter with eight questions it wants answered.

McCarthy said that she will answer the questions raised by both the farm bureau and the farmers union as soon as possible rather than wait for the formal comment period to end in October. "We need to answer those questions as we go along," she said, noting that EPA has also updated its webpage on WOTUS to make it easier to understand.

McCarthy does have her rural defenders. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which includes a wide range of hunting and fishing groups, has said Congress should not interfere with the comment process and that fish, wildlife, and people all need clean water.

The rule can be written so that "farmers and ranchers can farm the way they have and we can protect the waters," McCarthy said.

But rural America will have to accept the fact that some ditches will be regulated. "We are talking about ditches that used to be streams and still act like streams. They may not have water running, but still act as a stream," McCarthy said. Then she added, "I never expected to say the word 'ditch' this many times in my entire life and I hope to get away from that as soon as possible."

]]>

USDA unveils details of shutdown plan

Jerry Hagstrom — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The Hagstrom Report. "We still believe there is an opportunity to avoid a government shutdown but are working to ensure that we are prepared for all possible scenarios," the Agriculture official said in an email.

The official said the USDA's operational plans are still being finalized, but in the event of a government shutdown most agency activities would come to a halt or be significantly reduced, and most USDA employees would be furloughed.

However, certain USDA activities would continue because they are related to law enforcement, the protection of life and property, or are financed through available funding (such as through user fees). These include:

Meat, poultry and egg inspection services.
Grain and other commodity inspection, weighing and grading services funded by user fees.
Inspections for import and export activities to prevent the introduction and dissemination of pests into and out of the United States.
Forest Service law enforcement and fire suppression efforts.

In addition, funds have been made available to continue the Women, Infants and Children and Child Nutrition programs through June, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) has sufficient funding to allow benefits to continue through May.

Most other USDA activities would not be continued during a government shutdown. These activities include:

Farm loans and other farm payments.
Provision of conservation technical and financial assistance.
Provision of new rural development loans and grants for housing, community facilities, utilities and businesses.
Agricultural export credit and other agricultural trade development and monitoring activities.
National Forest System recreation sites across the U.S. would be closed to the public.
Market news reports, National Agricultural Statistics Services work, and other agricultural economic and statistical reports and projections would be discontinued.
Investigation of packers and stockyards related to fraudulent and anti-competitive activities.
Assistance for the control of most plant and animal pests and diseases would be discontinued.
Research facilities would be closed except for the care of animals and plants.
Most departmental management, administrative and oversight functions, including civil rights, human resources, financial management, audit, legal and information technology activities would be discontinued or severely curtailed.

]]>

USDA Native American case moves closer to resolution

Jerry Hagstrom — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0400

The long-standing Native American discrimination case against the Agriculture Department, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, appears to be near settlement, lawyers for the Justice Department and the plaintiffs told a federal District Court judge Wednesday.

The class action suit, which was filed in 1997, contends that the Agriculture Department discriminated against Native Americans in their applications for USDA's Farm Service Agency farm loans and loan servicing while white farmers received loans and better service.

At a status hearing on the case Justice Department lawyer Joshua Gardner told U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan that the government and the lawyers for the plaintiffs had reached agreement, and the case has been sent to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler for review. Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Sullivan that he believes final approval for the agreement is near.

Gardner said an expedited review is planned, but the agreement is 50 pages and must be reviewed thoroughly. He suggested that Sullivan allow the Justice Department to contact the court to schedule another hearing "when and if we have a signed agreement," but Sellers encouraged Sullivan to schedule another status hearing, which Sullivan set for Tuesday.

Sellers said that it is important to reach an agreement as soon as possible because he plans to use publications that are published only a few times a year to inform Native Americans of their right to file a claim. Sullivan agreed that informing potential claimants of their right to file is important and added that he would use the court's website to try to reach potential claimants.

"They have been waiting years for justice," Sullivan said.

Neither government nor plaintiffs' lawyers would discuss the amount of money in the case, but Sellers said the settlement includes both "economic recovery and programmatic relief." Sellers said he believes there will be tens of thousands of claimants but noted that the number is difficult to predict because USDA did not keep track of applications until 1999.

Sellers said that the settlement includes an "elaborate process" for claimants to come forward even if USDA does not have the paperwork. He also noted that payment will be made through the Justice Department's Judgment Fund and will not require a congressional appropriation like the one that is pending to settle the black farmer case known as Pigford II. Suits against the government are usually settled through the Judgment Fund, but Congress specifically said in the 2008 farm bill that all but $100 million in the Pigford II case must be appropriated.

Three defendants -- Marilyn Keepseagle, Claryca Mandan of North Dakota, and Porter Holder of Oklahoma -- and Sarah Vogel, a former North Dakota agriculture commissioner who is one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, traveled to Washington for the status hearing on Wednesday. Mandan said afterward they "were really hopeful that we could [go] home with a celebration." Sellers said he hopes the agreement will be signed by the plaintiffs by next week. He noted that Tony West, the assistant attorney general in charge of the civil division, had participated in at least a dozen meetings that led to the agreement.

]]>

Food safety undersecretary sets priorities

Jerry Hagstrom — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:00:00 -0400

In her first public speech since she was confirmed by the Senate on Sept. 16, Agriculture Undersecretary for Food Safety Elisabeth Hagen emphasized Thursday that the most important purpose of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service was "to protect the public health." The FSIS has responsibility for inspection of meat, poultry and processed egg products, but food safety activists have often accused the agency of protecting industry at the expense of public health.

Hagen told a Consumer Federation of America conference that food safety regulations and inspection helped farmers and ranchers, and gave confidence to trading partners, but that none of those benefits was as important as making food safe for consumers.

She was USDA's chief medical officer and a practicing physician before assuming her current post, and she said that she was motivated by her experience in treating an elderly man who had a food-borne illness. Speaking with some difficulty, Hagen said she had "never felt more helpless" than when she had to explain to the patient's wife that even though he had survived D-Day and built two businesses, he might die from eating contaminated food. "But I don't feel helpless when I go to work" at USDA, she added. "We are one team with a purpose and that is to protect public health."

Hagen also maintained that the Obama administration "has a commitment to food safety that hasn't been seen in over a decade." She said that for years FSIS "relied too heavily on reaction" but has "moved toward prevention" on the issue. When the U.S. government began inspecting food 100 years ago, the agency did not try to address pathogens that are known Thursday or put an emphasis on keeping children or chronically ill people from getting sick. Hagen said she wanted to improve the agency's ability to trace food-borne illness outbreaks to the source and its mandate to regulate production plants to make sure animals are treated humanely.

Asked about two changes to her agency that Congress included in the 2008 farm bill, Hagen said a rule to allow the interstate transport of meat inspected by state agencies was "in the final drafting stage" and that a rule to move inspection of catfish from FDA to USDA was at OMB. "I don't know when it is coming out," she said, but added that she realized Congress expected it to have been done by December 2009 and promised to push it forward.

The catfish rule is highly controversial. Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, who is from Arkansas and is one of the Southern senators who pushed Congress to move the inspection responsibility, asked Hagen about it at her confirmation hearing. The government of Vietnam is concerned that the rule could lead to unfair treatment of fish coming from that country.

Although the recent case of food-borne illness from eggs in Iowa has led activists to charge that the division of food inspection between FDA and USDA has led to poor performance, Hagen showed little interest in the creation of a single food safety agency. Hagen said that the Iowa situation "is all our faults" and that she wanted to improve information-sharing among the food inspection agencies. But she also said that she was not trying to expand FSIS jurisdiction and that consumers would be less concerned about how many agencies were inspecting food "if they thought we were doing the job."

]]>

OMB's handling of USDA funding has lawmaker fuming

Jerry Hagstrom — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., is mad as hell at the Office of Management and Budget over the way it is handling the Agriculture Department's money, and he's not going to take it anymore.

At a June hearing, Peterson learned that OMB had allowed the Bush administration in October 2008 to use $65 million from the mandatory Conservation Reserve Program to pay landowners to allow access to hunters. CRP money is intended as an incentive for farmers to idle land for soil restoration and wildlife habitat purposes.

When the Bush administration abandoned the idea of a hunters' initiative, OMB assigned the budget authority to deficit reduction rather than give it back to USDA for its original purpose. As a result, when the Obama administration came into office and wanted to extend CRP contracts and hold a signup to put more land in the CRP, USDA found itself financially strapped.

Peterson is so incensed that he has ordered a Government Accountability Office investigation and is considering holding a hearing to figure out if OMB is engaging in the same practice in other parts of the government.

"We are not going to stand for them changing mandatory programs," Peterson said. He added that he is also opposing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent request to OMB that USDA be allowed to propose cuts in mandatory programs in the fiscal 2012 budget rather than comply with President Obama's order that cabinet agencies cut 5 percent of discretionary programs.

Of Vilsack's request, Peterson said, "They can't cut mandatory programs. That's our responsibility."

OMB's fiddling with conservation money first came to light at a June 17 House Agriculture General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee hearing on the farm safety net.

Agriculture Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Jim Miller testified at the hearing that the Obama administration planned to use some of the money being saved in a renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement with crop insurance companies to pay for a new signup for the CRP. Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., the subcommittee's ranking member, told Miller that he could not understand why it was necessary to use the savings for a program receiving mandatory funding from Congress.

Miller explained that USDA wanted to hold a general signup so that acreage in the CRP would be as close as possible to the 32 million acres allowed by Congress in the 2008 farm bill, but found that it did not have the budget authority to undertake it even though Congress had mandated it. When the Bush administration did not follow through with its hunters' initiative and OMB assigned the money to budget reduction, "We lost it," Miller said.

A USDA spokesman further explained in an e-mail that due to the Bush administration's actions, when the Obama administration wanted to extend contracts on CRP acres in fiscal 2009, the only way it could comply with OMB rules was to reduce the planned fiscal 2010 signup from 4.4 million acres to 2.9 million acres. USDA is planning a signup in August of at least 4 million acres to bring acreage up to the full 32 million acres allowed, but the agency will have to use the savings from crop insurance to pay for it, the spokesman added.

Peterson likened OMB's practice to the way appropriators cut mandatory programs when the money has not been spent. "What good is mandatory [spending] if people can shift" the way the money is spent?," Peterson asked.

A Peterson spokeswoman said he has asked the administration for a complete briefing on OMB's policies, but has not received a response.

An OMB official told CongressDaily in an e-mail Wednesday, "Due to various factors, OMB's baseline for the CRP program did not assume 32 million acres of enrollment until further in the budget's out year time line. Administrative PAYGO, which originated under the Bush Administration and has been continued under the Obama Administration, require that additional increases in mandatory spending above the baseline scoring estimate must be offset when a department is considering administrative actions that would result in increasing the costs of mandatory programs."

]]>

USDA chief gets heat for Sherrod firing

Jerry Hagstrom — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

The Congressional Black Caucus, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and the Rural Coalition Wednesday called on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reinstate Shirley Sherrod, the Georgia rural development director who was forced to resign Tuesday amid controversy over remarks on race.

Sherrod has come under fire for comments she made at a March NAACP conference - which were taped and widely circulated - that critics have called racist. As a member of an anti-poverty group 20 years ago, Sherrod said, she denied a white farmer full assistance.

But in extended comments heard only in the full videotape, she said she later helped the farmer, and she used the example to underscore that her job was to help poor farmers regardless of race.

In a statement, CBC Chairwoman Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and other caucus members said it was troubling that Sherrod was asked for her resignation "because of an edited video clip."

"A full review of the clip demonstrates Ms. Sherrod's personal transformation. She was clearly educating the public about the power of redemption. It is now apparent that Secretary Vilsack did not have all of the facts available to him and overreacted," the statement added.

"There are many individuals still serving in the Department of Agriculture who were responsible for years of discrimination against African American farmers," the statement said, referring to long-standing discrimination cases that are only now being settled.

Ralph Paige, executive director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and Land Assistance Fund, called on Vilsack to "quickly correct this injustice."

"We note with interest that your concern is to move forward to solve the problems that USDA has had in the past in terms of its sad record on civil rights," Paige said. "Yet your decision to fire one of the few persons in the country who could likely do the most to help achieve that goal stubbornly negates your stated interest of moving forward toward equal access and equality of opportunity at USDA with integrity."

"The inference that Shirley Sherrod is a racist is beyond comprehension," he added. "For you to make a decision without consideration of Shirley's long and impressive work in civil rights is uncalled for."

Paige also suggested that Vilsack use Sherrod as an "ambassador" to teach others around the country about race.

The Rural Coalition, which lobbies for low-income farmers and rural people of all races, said President Obama and Vilsack should apologize to Sherrod for the pressure they put on her to resign as well as reinstate her.

As a leader of a USDA community-based group, Sherrod had "passionately insisted that the injustices experienced by Hmong immigrant producers in Arkansas be addressed by USDA," the group added, arguing that her leadership had set the stage for Vilsack's civil rights initiative.

Meanwhile, National Association of Black Farmers President John Boyd Wednesday called on Congress to include the money for the settlement of the black farmers' discrimination case against USDA in the war supplemental bill.

Early Wednesday, Vilsack issued a statement to say he would review the situation. But Sherrod said on NBC's "Today" that she is not certain she wants her job back.

Vilsack has not returned a request for comment.

Billy House contributed to this report.

]]>

Agriculture chief fosters better relationship between EPA and farmers

Jerry Hagstrom — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's handling of agricultural issues on Monday, but he acknowledged EPA has made some mistakes in handling farm issues and said he is trying to help farmers in their relationship with the agency.

In the question-and-answer session after a speech to the National Association of Conservation Districts board, Vilsack said EPA often finds itself between laws written by Congress and lawsuits filed regarding those laws.

But Vilsack believes EPA officials do not "get into the countryside" enough and do not communicate well with farmers. In that context, Vilsack said, he has set up a regular series of meetings with Jackson and representatives of livestock, row crop and specialty crop producers.

But Vilsack said he found that when EPA analyzed the potential for corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel in reducing carbon emissions, EPA did not understand that corn productiion had risen dramatically in the past 15 years. Once EPA officials were made aware of the increased productivity, the agency ruled that corn-based ethanol could play a more positive role, Vilsack said.

Vilsack also said the Obama administration is holding listening sessions around the country on its Great American Outdoors Initiative, which is intended to encourage more Americans to participate in rural recreation activities. Vilsack said that at a recent event in Montana, he heard concerns from ranchers that outsiders are building million-dollar houses on what has been grazing land and said the initiative was not designed to take land out of agricultural production.

Vilsack said he wants to focus the 2012 farm bill on encouraging young Americans to go into farming. Although economists for decades have said the country has too many farmers and encouraged consolidation of farms to increase efficiency, Vilsack said he would like to find a way for communities to encourage farm youth and other young people to go into the industry, at least on a part-time basis.

He added that the administration's efforts on energy development in rural areas and its "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative are intended to stave off population losses. "We can't [continue] this extraordinary out-migration," Vilsack said.

]]>

Black-farmers group cheers deal in war bill

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Two longstanding discrimination lawsuits against USDA and the Interior Department received settlement money in the war supplemental approved by the House late Thursday, spurring advocates to call on the Senate to follow suit.

The bill included money to pay for the settlement of a black farmers' anti-discrimination case against USDA, known as Pigford II, and the Cobell Individual Indian Money Accounts claims at Interior. The House had tried to include the Pigford II and the Cobell settlements in the "extenders" bill passed earlier by the chamber, but that bill remains stalled in the Senate.

National Black Farmers Association President John Boyd on Friday praised the House for including the settlements, citing Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their work.

Boyd called on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans to vote for either the extenders bill or the supplemental so that black farmers could receive justice. Boyd said Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., had been supportive, but he noted any bill including the settlements still needs GOP backing to pass.

Boyd said he is appealing first to Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to vote for one of the bills containing the settlements because Grassley has long been a champion of settling the black farmers' cases.

Boyd also called on southern Republican senators to "do the right thing for the black farmers" who are their constituents and vote for it. He noted that Mississippi and Alabama each has about 20,000 black farmers who would get settlements.

Boyd said he is also working with the advocates in the Cobell claims, who are located mostly in the western states, to try to find 60 Senate votes to pass the legislation.

The black farmers' settlement has been a contentious matter for years. Dan Glickman, the Agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration, settled the initial Pigford case brought against USDA, but black farmers argued not all discrimination victims had a chance to file their cases before the deadline passed.

The Justice Department's Judgment Fund has paid out more than $1 billion in the initial Pigford settlement. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress allowed additional claimants to file their cases in what has become known as Pigford II and authorized USDA to settle the cases. But the bill included only $100 million for the settlement and stipulated the rest of the money could not come from the Judgment Fund. That means it would need to be appropriated.

The Obama administration reached agreement with the farmers for a total settlement of $1.25 billion to be divided among the victims, but the administration has refused to ask Congress for an emergency declaration for the $1.15 billion needed to complete the settlement.

House leadership said the settlement in the supplemental is offset.

CORRECTION: The original version of this article indicated that National Black Farmers Association President John Boyd had praised Rep. David Scott, D-Ga. He actually was referring to Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. The story has been updated to correct the error.

]]>

Emergency appropriation for black farmers is unlikely

Jerry Hagstrom — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Neither the White House nor the House leadership appears willing to provide a $1.15 billion appropriation on an emergency basis to settle the black farmers' discrimination lawsuit against the Agriculture Department, threatening a settlement reached this year in the decades-old litigation.

John Boyd, president of the Black Farmers Association, said Wednesday that a key White House aide told him at a meeting last week that the administration would not support an emergency appropriation for the settlement so the expenditure would not need to be offset under pay/go rules.

Boyd said Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, told him the settlement did not meet the administration's criteria to be designated as an emergency. A White House spokesman would not comment on Boyd's statement, but noted that President Obama remains committed to a settlement of the case.

Earlier Wednesday, Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., chief deputy whip in the House, said the House leadership would prefer to provide money for the settlement through "regular order."

Butterfield, whose constituents include Timothy Pigford, the initial plaintiff in the class action suit, said he agrees with the leadership position because he does not want the settlement to increase the deficit, but that if offsets cannot be found he would vote for a bill to provide the money without offsets.

Butterfield spoke at a news conference with Ralph Paige of the Atlanta-based Federation of Southern Cooperatives and other black farm leaders. Paige, who was at the same White House meeting with Boyd, said it was up to Congress to provide the money on an emergency basis or find the offsets.

Boyd also said he believes the administration should tell Congress what offsets should be used. "We are still holding the president accountable. He just hasn't taken that final step with us," Boyd said.

Black farmers have charged that for decades USDA gave them poor service and denied them the same level of farm and housing loans as white farmers received. The Clinton administration settled an initial group of claims known as Pigford I, which has resulted in payments of more than $1 billion from the Justice Department's judgment fund.

The need for the $1.15 billion appropriation has arisen because the 2008 farm bill authorized payment of Pigford claims that had not met an original filing deadline, but provided only $100 million to settle the suits. The Obama administration and lawyers for the black farmers agreed to a $1.25 billion settlement in that case, known as Pigford II.

]]>

Agriculture Department's soybean investigation nearing end

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0400

"We anticipate completing our review and issuing our findings by early May," spokesman Paul Feeney said in an e-mail.

The origins of the investigation lie in conflicts between the American Soybean Association, a producers' group that lobbies on domestic policy, and the United Soybean Board, a group that collects and spends money that farmers have voted to pay for research and promotion. There have long been tensions between the association, which has to work to convince farmers to join and pay dues for lobbying operations, and the board, which gets its 0.5 percent of the price of each bushel sold through a check-off program and gets additional money from USDA.

The American Soybean Association campaigned to set up the check-off and has been the group through which the USDA money flowed, but in the fall of 2008, the U.S. Soybean Export Council, a joint venture of the two soybean groups to promote foreign sales, voted to remove the association as the cooperator group. In reaction, the association petitioned then-Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer to request that the inspector general investigate.

The petition noted that farmers had paid $1.3 billion in check-off assessments over 17 years and included allegations of misspending. There were also allegations that an export council official pulled a knife on a soybean association official in Branson, Mo., when the soybean groups held an executive retreat there and that an export council official had an improper sexual relationship that disrupted management of the Japan foreign office and jeopardized U.S. soy exports to that market.

Schafer signed off on the investigation because USDA oversees the check-off program and the Agriculture secretary appoints members of the United Soybean Board.

]]>

Push is on to find $1.15B for black farmers' settlement

Jerry Hagstrom — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

"They're still talking. The conversations will roll into tomorrow," the Conyers aide said after emerging from a meeting between Conyers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and National Black Farmers Association President John Boyd.

Time is of the essence because an agreement that USDA and the Justice Department worked out with the black farmers' lawyers says that if Congress does not appropriate the money by March 31, any of the participants -- the farmers, their lawyers or the administration -- can walk away from the deal.

Boyd said he has not decided what action his group would take if the appropriation is not passed by the deadline. The black farmers wanted a $2.5 billion settlement, but agreed to $1.25 billion -- $100 million from the 2008 farm bill plus the $1.15 billion appropriation -- because they are getting older and want the case to end, he added. "If they get their money, they would have a few years to enjoy," Boyd said.

The White House signaled Wednesday it wants the matter concluded. "President Obama is committed to ensuring that the black farmers' settlement is finalized and that the farmers and their descendants get the relief they deserve," a White House official told CongressDaily. "This is an issue he worked on as a member of the Senate, and he is determined to see it through to its rightful conclusion. With this in mind, we are working diligently with members of Congress to find the best vehicle as we develop a final package."

Earlier Wednesday, at a news conference, Conyers and Boyd complained that, while Vilsack has said that Congress should pass the appropriation on an emergency basis, the White House has not formally submitted an emergency declaration to the House.

During the news conference, Conyers had an aide call Vilsack to set up a meeting and invited reporters to go along to USDA. But Vilsack decided instead to go to Capitol Hill.

Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., also spoke at the press conference and said the farmers should get their money because "they've been waiting too long." Hagen said that Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, had tried to attach a provision to provide the money to the tax extenders bill, but it had been ruled out of order.

The black farmers have charged that USDA discriminated against them in farm and housing loans.

Dan Glickman, Agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration, settled the initial class action suit known as Pigford I. But some farmers did not file their papers by the deadline for filing claims, and the 2008 farm bill allowed them to refile their cases under what has become known as Pigford II.

The settlements for the Pigford I case came out of the Justice Department judgment fund, but Vilsack has noted that the 2008 farm bill said the judgment fund could not be used to settle the Pigford II cases and that an appropriation was necessary.

]]>

Agriculture chief says black farmer discrimination settlement needs $1.15B

Jerry Hagstrom — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The Obama administration is asking Congress to appropriate $1.15 billion in emergency funding to make payments to black farmers to satisfy the discrimination case known as Pigford II, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Tuesday.

After testifying before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Vilsack told reporters the administration was asking for the money on an emergency basis, without offsets, because the 2008 farm bill said the Justice Department's judgment fund -- the normal source of settlement money -- could not be used to make the payments. The Obama administration wants Congress to provide the money by March 31, Vilsack added.

The farm bill urged USDA to settle the cases and provided an initial $100 million in funding. Total payouts under the settlement would be $1.25 billion.

When the agreement between the government and lawyers for the black farmers was announced on Feb. 22, a Justice Department official said the plaintiffs' lawyers reserved the right to revoke the agreement if Congress does not provide the money by March 31.

At the hearing, Vilsack told Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., that the Pigford II case would be settled on two tracks, with a speedy route for small payments and another for payments of up to $250,000 to farmers who submit more complex information on their cases.

Meanwhile, USDA and Justice Department lawyers are meeting with lawyers for the Native American, Hispanic and women farmers who have filed discrimination cases against USDA, Vilsack said. He noted that the Native American case is established as a class action suit, while cases involving Hispanics and women might involve filings by thousands of individuals.

For the cases to be settled, Vilsack said, "there will have to be an understanding on the dollar amount" among lawyers on both sides, and that Congress will need to create a process for USDA and the claimants to go through to get the claims settled. House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has introduced a bill to appropriate money to settle the women's cases.

In other news at the hearing, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., warned that rural shoppers might be using food stamps to buy "empty calories" and asked Vilsack whether USDA has considered requiring food stamp beneficiaries to make their purchases according to food quality standards for the school lunch and special nutrition program for women, infants and children known as WIC.

Vilsack responded that grocery stores typically contain 50,000 items, which makes it impossible for USDA to encode the electronic benefit transfer cards to limit many purchases. But USDA is considering incentives for food stamp beneficiaries in which the grocer would be paid one dollar if a beneficiary purchased certain foods such as fruits and vegetables, while the beneficiary would be charged only 80 cents on the card, he added.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Vilsack he was disappointed that USDA did not include all the money available to it under the farm bill within its conservation budget. Vilsack replied that USDA wants to make sure it has staff in place to administer the programs, but Harkin noted that the farm bill included money for staff as well as programs.

]]>

Vilsack names more key deputies

Jerry Hagstrom — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Wednesday announced a series of appointments with implications for the Obama administration's policies on trade promotion and food aid, as well as for President Obama's global food security initiative.

None of the appointees is close to farm, commodity or food-aid groups, and they do not require Senate confirmation.

Vilsack appointed Darci Vetter as deputy undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services, replacing Burnham (Bud) Philbrook, who resigned for family reasons. Vetter is a Senate Finance Committee Democratic staffer and previously served as director of agricultural affairs and sustainable development at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where she also worked on trade negotiations.

Vilsack named John Brewer as administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service. Brewer has been the FAS associate administrator, the No. 2 position in that agency, and the acting administrator since late December, when Vilsack reassigned the previous administrator, Michael Michener, as his special representative in the U.S. embassy to the United Nations food agencies in Rome.

Brewer previously worked for Booz Allen Hamilton on intelligence and finance-related projects and for the American International Group. He also worked on Vilsack's short-lived presidential campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

To replace Brewer as associate administrator, Vilsack named Janet Nuzum, a former International Trade Commission commissioner, House Ways and Means staffer and aide to former Rep. Cal Dooley, D-Calif.

Nuzum was also general counsel for the International Dairy Foods Association. Although she is taking Brewer's position as FAS associate administrator, she will also carry the title of FAS general sales manager.

In addition, Vilsack has appointed Ann Tutwiler as his global food security adviser, USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan confirmed Wednesday. Tutwiler will report directly to Vilsack, Merrigan said. Tutwiler was an international affairs aide to Rajiv Shah, the USDA undersecretary for research, education and economics who recently became administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Tutwiler was a Washington-based grants officer for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and president and chief executive officer of the International Food & Agriculture Trade Policy Council, a foundation and agribusiness-funded group that advocates free-trade policies.

]]>

Empty Agriculture offices, including food safety, raise concerns

Jerry Hagstrom — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Almost a full year after President Obama took office, the Agriculture Department still has vacancies in five key leadership positions, including the high-profile job of undersecretary for food safety.

Despite several outbreaks of food-borne illness in 2009 and the appointment of an interagency panel on food safety, Obama has not nominated anyone for the top food-safety position at USDA.

House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has repeatedly called on the president to make an appointment. Late last month, after 21 people in 16 states had become infected with E. coli and National Steak and Poultry recalled 248,000 pounds of beef products, DeLauro said the problem was caused by practices that USDA could easily regulate if it had an appointee to make decisions.

"This position has been vacant for far too long and it is preventing the department from acting on critical food safety issues such as this one," DeLauro said.

Administration officials have acknowledged they have had trouble filling the slot because the White House does not want to nominate a candidate who has been a lobbyist for either food companies or consumer groups. When asked about the vacancy, Caleb Weaver, a USDA spokesman said in an e-mail, "Until there are zero illnesses and deaths due to food-borne illness, there is work to be done, which is why Secretary Tom Vilsack has made this a top priority."

Weaver went on to cite examples of USDA efforts, including a joint initiative with the FDA to improve product traceability throughout the food supply chain.

Obama has also failed to nominate a general counsel at USDA. Vilsack has said he wants to make civil rights and the settlement of discrimination cases a top priority, but there has been no resolution of any cases so far.

The position of chief financial officer is also vacant. The Senate confirmed businessman Evan Segal to the position in July, but he quit after Vilsack required the CFO to report to Assistant Secretary for Administration Pearlie Reed. According to a report in Government Executive, Segal objected to the change, citing a law requiring CFOs to report directly to agency secretaries.

The job of undersecretary for research, education and economics also has been vacant since Rajiv Shah became administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development last week. Molly Jahn, the deputy undersecretary who came on board Nov. 9, is running the agency, but Jahn agreed to take the deputy slot for only one year.

The position of administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service has been vacant since December when Vilsack reassigned Michael Michener to the U.S. embassy to the United Nations food agencies in Rome. FAS Associate Administrator John Brewer is running FAS, and USDA sources say Brewer told FAS employees last week that he expects Vilsack to name a new administrator soon.

Vilsack has the authority to name a new FAS administrator, but President Obama must nominate the two undersecretaries and the general counsel and send them to the Senate for confirmation. "The president remains committed to filling these positions with the most qualified persons for those posts," a White House spokesman said in an e-mail on Monday.

]]>

USDA chief plans for Afghanistan trip

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is planning a trip to Afghanistan as USDA ramps up efforts to promote agricultural development in the country.

At a news conference Thursday with U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Rajiv Shah and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Vilsack said agriculture development is the Obama administration's top nonmilitary priority in Afghanistan, with local officials leading the effort. He declined to give details on timing of the trip, but said it would be "soon."

"We will align our assistance and our help with the agricultural framework that has been recently announced by the Afghan government," Vilsack said.

Holbrooke emphasized that Afghanistan is dangerous for Vilsack and for civilians working there. "Civilians are not in the same environment as the military," he added. "They have to get out [of the protected zone] to do their work."

Vilsack said USDA has 54 people in Afghanistan, with 10 more on the way, and a budget of $300 million per year. Many of them are paired with Afghan Agriculture Ministry officials, while others are working on projects ranging from improving crop productivity and export systems to saving watersheds and planting trees, he added.

Holbrooke noted the Obama administration has shifted strategy from poppy eradication to agricultural development. One hectare could generate $2,500 in opium sales for an Afghan farmer, but the same land could bring $3,000 to $4,000 from apples and $18,000 from table grapes, Vilsack said.

Vilsack, Shah and Holbrooke did not discuss whether USDA might be usurping USAID's traditional development role and undertaking the Afghan reconstruction effort at the expense of the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service's traditional mandate to sell U.S. products abroad.

FAS Administrator Michael Michener had been in charge of the U.S. effort, but after longtime agency officials criticized him for neglecting the agency's traditional work, he was reassigned in December to the U.S. embassy to the United Nations food agencies in Rome.

Vilsack, Shah and Holbrooke emphasized that even though three civilian agencies -- State, USAID and USDA -- and the military are involved in the agriculture effort, they are taking a "one team, one mission" approach.

Holbrooke said USDA and USAID personnel in Afghanistan have been asked to keep their agency identification under wraps in part for that purpose. Both USDA and USAID leaders report to Ambassador Tony Wayne, who is "the senior director of operations," Holbrooke said.

At a separate event Friday, Holbrooke told the Women's Foreign Policy Group that the Obama administration plans to begin removing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 as part of "a responsible transition" and that agricultural development will be a key determinant in whether Afghanistan can handle its security on its own.

]]>

Head of Foreign Agricultural Service reassigned

Jerry Hagstrom — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Michener announced his change of jobs in an e-mail to the FAS staff. He said his last day in the office would be Dec. 31 and that John Brewer, his deputy and FAS general sales manager -- who is in charge of marketing U.S. agricultural products overseas -- will become acting administrator on Jan. 1.

Michener, an Iowan who previously worked for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, was a foreign affairs adviser for Vilsack's short-lived 2008 presidential campaign. After Vilsack was named Agriculture secretary, he selected Michener to head FAS. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

In his e-mail, Michener listed a series of accomplishments during his tenure at FAS. "In my time as FAS Administrator," he wrote, "we implemented a turnaround process that stabilized our agency's budget, allowed a resumption of hiring and travel, and executed a strategic planning process to 're-envision' how FAS does business. We have also led the USDA engagement with the departments of Defense, State, and USAID to support the expanded deployment of USDA agricultural experts to Afghanistan, a key component of the president's strategy to defeat al Qaeda. This is work I am very proud of and I thank the wonderful and dedicated staff at FAS who supported me along the way."

But a USDA insider said Michener was reassigned after an FAS personnel survey showed low morale at the agency. Both current and retired FAS officers have criticized Michener for the amount of attention he has devoted to agricultural development projects in Afghanistan, saying the agency's traditional missions of analyzing foreign agricultural production and promoting the sale of U.S. agricultural products were being neglected.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wrote to Vilsack and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this year asking them to explain the role of FAS in Afghanistan. Lugar said he was worried the agency was taking over work that should be done by USAID and neglecting its traditional duties. Vilsack and Clinton separately assured Lugar that USAID and FAS would continue to play their long-standing roles.

In his e-mail, Michener said he was "honored" to take on the new role because the U.N. agencies with which he would be coordinating -- the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Program and the International Fund for Agricultural Development -- "are playing an influential role in the adoption of new biotechnologies and the agricultural aspects of global climate change negotiations, as well as their traditional role in leading U.N. efforts in global food security initiatives."

Ertharin Cousin, a Chicagoan who worked on President Obama's campaign, is the ambassador to the U.N. agencies.

In his e-mail, Michener said three officials to whom he had given substantial authority at FAS -- Suzanne Hale, Lona Stoll, Christine Turner and Michelle Mayorga -- "will continue to serve in their roles in the administrator's office."

]]>

Agriculture chief disputes USDA climate bill study

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Friday took issue with a report his own agency has issued on the impact of the House-passed climate change bill, which concluded there will be a large-scale conversion of cropland to forestland.

The study, authored by USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber, said the bill would help the agriculture sector overall. But it also said if the price of carbon allowances increases to $70 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2050, almost 60 million more acres of land would be converted to forest, 35 million acres of which would come from cropland.

That would be a 14 percent decline in cropland from the current level and take away 24 million acres from pasture -- an almost 9 percent decline.

The analysis was based on the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model by researchers at Texas A&M University, which EPA has used to study climate legislation.

Glauber's testimony on the study before a House Agriculture subcommittee Dec. 6 had led some farm leaders and Republicans to warn such a shift would lead to much higher food production and consumer food costs. Vilsack echoed those concerns Friday, saying that the scenario would be "disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country."

But Vilsack added that he took away from his talks with Glauber that the economist does not believe the increased forest forecast is "necessarily an accurate depiction of the impacts of climate legislation."

Vilsack said the model could be updated and noted that Glauber testified that careful design of an offsets program could avoid "unintended consequences."

]]>

Fund proposed for female farmers in USDA bias cases

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0500

In what may be the beginning of a multibillion-dollar congressional effort to settle discrimination suits against the Agriculture Department, two key House members introduced legislation Thursday to establish a $4.6 billion compensation fund for female farmers who have been denied loans since 1981.

House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said their bill is long overdue.

"Years of discrimination and unnecessary hardship for these women, and all minorities, cannot be allowed to continue," DeLauro said. "It is time to do right by those that have been discriminated against in our past and present, to live up to our founding principles, and to legislate an end to this unfortunate and regrettable era."

Joining DeLauro at a news conference were farmers from Montana, California, Florida and New York who were among thousands of black, Hispanic, Native American and female farmers who were part of four discrimination cases filed by each class against USDA a decade ago, charging that they were denied farm-operating and emergency loans that the agency routinely made to white male farmers.

"This is an issue of fundamental fairness -- all farmers, regardless of their gender or ethnicity, should be judged on the merit of their applications for their loans," DeLauro said.

The Clinton administration settled the black farmers' case, Pigford v. Glickman, resulting in eventual payments of more than $1 billion to farmers. A provision in the 2008 farm bill allows black farmers who did not meet the deadline to file their claims, and President Obama said in his fiscal 2009 budget request to Congress that he wanted to set aside $1.25 billion to settle those cases.

The Hispanic, Native American and women's cases are still pending. DeLauro noted Thursday that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has made civil rights a priority, and a Vilsack spokesman said in an e-mail that USDA is committed to ending all forms of discrimination and addressing past allegations in a timely and fair manner."

USDA and the Justice Department have not settled any cases since Obama became president, although Joe Sellers, a lawyer for the Native Americans, said Thursday that USDA has recently indicated an interest in entering negotiations on that case.

Members of Congress, including Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., have urged Obama to settle the cases, and Colorado Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet have written Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that they want to work with him on a solution.

The DeLauro-Eshoo bill would resolve a lawsuit filed in federal court in 2000.

]]>

USAID nomination raises agency questions

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500

President Obama's nomination of Agriculture Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics Rajiv Shah to be administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development has won praise but is raising questions about the future of USDA agricultural research programs and USAID's relationship with the State Department and other agencies.

Officials at land grant universities are worried that without Shah's leadership it will be difficult to convince the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to increase the USDA budget for agricultural research.

Association of Public and Land Grant Universities President Peter McPherson, a former USAID administrator, had promoted Shah's nomination for the USDA post even though Shah is a physician and had no educational training in agriculture.

Shah had been hired as an executive at the Gates Foundation to handle health care but shifted to agriculture, and the thinking within the land grant community was that Shah's prestige would help convince appropriators to fully fund additional research authorities included in the 2008 farm bill.

In an interview on Friday, McPherson praised Shah as a "particularly thoughtful and broad-gauged person" who is an "excellent choice" for USAID administrator. "As to what it means for universities, the first question is what it means for development. And I think it is good."

D.C. Coston, a North Dakota State University agriculture professor who monitors implementation of the farm bill, said he was disappointed that Shah was leaving USDA but hopes the land grants and the Obama administration can find a new undersecretary quickly.

But as APLU leaders began arriving in Washington on Friday for their annual meeting, a lobbyist for several land grant colleges said there is already "lots of disappointment and lots of concern" that they have lost a champion who had come to appreciate the role that formula funds play in core support for the universities.

The lobbyist said land grant officials fear that Roger Beachy, a former president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis who has been appointed to head USDA's new National Institute for Food and Agriculture, will favor competitive grants over formula funds. Shah was scheduled to speak to the APLU meeting, but canceled and will be replaced by Beachy, a land grant official said.

Meanwhile, Senate aides said on Friday they expect the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold a confirmation hearing on Shah before Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., leaves for the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen in early December.

Kerry and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind., praised Obama for making the nomination but said they intend to use the confirmation process to discuss how USAID will work in the future.

Development advocates have been on a campaign for USAID to re-establish its independence from the State Department.

"The White House needs to give him a seat at the National Security Council and the State Department needs to give him back policy and budget authority of USAID operation," Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development said in a statement.

But USAID career officials and contractors noted the White House announcement of Shah's nomination did not include a separate State Department title, which some previous administrators have had, and that it is unlikely the 36-year-old will get that independence.

]]>

Officials envision broader nutrition program

Jerry Hagstrom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Education Secretary Arne Duncan said on Friday they and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have pledged to work together to develop a comprehensive approach toward improving school nutrition and reducing child obesity.

"This is not just a nutrition program. It is an education and health program," Vilsack said, following a meeting with education and school nutrition groups on the reauthorization of child nutrition programs expected next year.

Duncan said the subsidized school meals programs, which serve 31 million children, have become even more important during the recession because some children "get two to three meals a day in school."

The child nutrition programs are on a five-year authorization cycle that expired Sept. 30. Congress reauthorized the programs for a year and plans for a full reauthorization next year. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., has scheduled the first hearing on reauthorization Nov. 17, when Vilsack is slated to testify. In his fiscal 2010 budget request, President Obama proposed an additional $1 billion per year to feed more children and improve meals.

Vilsack said the Obama administration would propose making the process for applying for reduced-price and free meals easier. Improving the quality of food is also a priority. A recent Institute of Medicine study showed that "children eat too much salt and sugar and too many empty calories in school meals," Duncan said, adding he would consider making nutrition and exercise part of the criteria for awarding competitive grants to the schools.

Education and nutrition leaders said Vilsack and Duncan promised to continue to meet with the group as they develop their recommendations to lawmakers.

Barbara Nissel, the supervisor for food services at the Great Valley School District in Malvern, Pa., said the vendors who provide school meals will not make changes in food until school districts tell vendors they will not buy foods of poor nutritional quality, and that school officials cannot apply that pressure until they have support from federal officials and parents.

Barbara Greene, director of school health programs for the National School Boards Association, said the process of improving school diets might take a while. Despite years of anti-smoking campaigns, not all schools are tobacco-free, Greene noted, because teachers are still allowed to smoke on the grounds.

]]>

Draft climate change bill puts USDA in lead on emissions

Jerry Hagstrom — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400

A discussion draft of the agriculture and forestry title of the Senate's climate change bill would order the Agriculture secretary and Environmental Protection Agency administrator to establish a program to create credits for carbon emission reductions but make USDA the lead agency in key aspects of the program -- a provision similar to the House-passed bill.

The draft, developed by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., calls for the EPA administrator and Agriculture secretary to "establish a program to govern the creation of credits from emission reductions from uncapped domestic sources and sinks" within one year of enactment.

It also calls on EPA and USDA to jointly protect the integrity of the program, prioritize rulemaking for activities "that present the fewest technical challenges and greatest certainty of net atmospheric benefits," and make sure that requirements between the two agencies are consistent.

It also says the EPA administrator, in consultation with the Agriculture secretary, will establish a registry to record approved credits. But it says USDA will "administer as the lead agency" the job of creating a list of eligible methodologies that can be used to reduce emissions, approving petitions and verifying emission reductions under practices going back to Jan. 1, 2001.

In addition, USDA and EPA will jointly establish requirements to verify the quantity of greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from an offset project. The EPA administrator, in consultation with the USDA secretary, will issue the offset credits and assign a unique serial number to each credit.

Stabenow's draft could be eventually injected into the revised draft cap-and-trade bill that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., unveiled late Friday.

That draft updates an earlier one by including a formula, similar to the House bill, for allocating emission credits to businesses. Kerry and Boxer also released an EPA cost analysis that said the costs of the House and Senate bills should be similar.

EPA determined the House bill would cost the average household between $80 and $111 annually. But critics contend the agency used some unrealistic criteria, including an expansion of 100 nuclear reactors in 20 years.

Republicans on Boxer's panel want a more thorough cost analysis before the markup, which might occur as early as next week. If they do not get one, they are threatening not to show up and deny the committee its necessary quorum to act. The committee holds three days of hearings this week, starting with five administration officials Tuesday.

Darren Goode contributed to this story.

]]>

Deputy secretary asserts control over Agriculture budget

Jerry Hagstrom — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan is planning to continue running the USDA budget, despite an organizational revamp that has placed the budget office under Assistant Secretary for Administration Pearlie Reed. Click here to view a chart of the reorganization.

"I will be running the budget process at USDA," Merrigan told CongressDaily on Friday, adding that she had presented USDA's fiscal 2011 budget to the Office of Management and Budget and will make the presentations of future budgets.

The deputy Agriculture secretary has traditionally been in charge of developing the budget and received reports from the budget officer. But since the reorganization, which went into effect Oct. 1, farm lobbyists have worried that if an official below the level of deputy secretary made the presentations, USDA would be at a disadvantage.

Merrigan said she has received calls from congressional offices also expressing concern, but added she is meeting with USDA budget analysts weekly. The meetings also include USDA Chief Financial Officer Evan Segal, a Senate-confirmed appointee.

The departmental management reorganization shows that the Office of Budget and Program Analysis will report to Segal, who reports to Reed. But USDA budget officer Scott Steele said Monday he is expecting to maintain "traditional communications channels and working relationships important to carry out budget processes and policy."

The reorganization also shows that USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Joe Leonard will report to Reed rather than to the secretary. A spokeswoman for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Monday the Office of Civil Rights was placed under Reed so that civil rights could be better integrated with other human resources and employment offices, which have also been placed under Reed.

Vilsack said in February that he wanted to upgrade the position of assistant secretary for administration to the level of undersecretary, in part to give the administration's initiative to resolve USDA's long-standing civil rights problems more stature. But the spokeswoman said Monday that no action has been taken.

A USDA source said Monday Vilsack's decision to move more offices under the assistant secretary for administration came from his organizational experience as governor of Iowa.

]]>