Fellow association member Mike Taylor from InterWest Insurance Services invites you to take advantage of training being offered in regards to OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. 

The Risk Management Department at InterWest Insurance Services has developed a comprehensive training platform to comply with the initial December 1st, 2013 employer training deadline.  InterWest will present a series of no-cost regionally located seminars to provide your key personnel with the materials and information to comply with the required "phase-in" training.

Please review the attached document for the dates and locations of the training sessions and for easy online registration. 

• Click here....   

Mike Taylor, CPCU

Vice President

InterWest Insurance Services, Inc.

100 Pringle Avenue, North Tower, Suite 550

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

(925) 977-4104 Office

(800) 464-0077 Toll Free

(925) 977-4150 Fax

(510) 206-5505 Mobile

CA Lic # 0B01094

www.iwins.com

mtaylor@iwins.com

Let our experience guide you.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) steered her second Farm Bill in as many years to its endpoint, as the full Senate this week approved the bill on a strong 66-27 bipartisan vote. The final tally was two more votes in favor than in 2012.  The road to reaching the final vote was a rocky one, with over 200 amendments dealt with.  

The bill carries a $955-billion price tag, and saves an estimated $24 billion over 10 years.  About 80% of the total cost is monies spent on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or federal food stamps, as well as federal nutrition programs, including school meals and the Women Infant Children (WIC) program.

While several southern Senators praised a shift in the bill's direct payment title - it includes new ties to target prices for rice and peanuts - the bill is more in line with the House bill than last year's version. However, that move to retain target prices on some crops cost Stabenow the vote of her former ranking member Sen. Pat Roberts (R, KS), who is also a former chair of the House Agriculture Committee, and Sen. John Thune (R, SD).  Roberts called the commodity title programs "looking in the rear-view mirror of outdated policies causing the farmer to plant for the government not the market," and Thune complained of the shift as well as about amendments filed but ignored.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), shut the Senate down for a day and a half last week to allow Senators to attend the funeral of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) and pay their respects as Lautenberg's body lay in state in the Senate chamber.  Reid then filed a cloture motion last Wednesday, easily approved 75-22, cutting off debate on the Farm Bill.  Reid's cloture motion was supported by a letter from over 120 national, regional and state ag and input industry groups, including AFIA.

Stabenow and committee ranking member Sen. Thad Cochran (R, MS) walked away from about 175 of the filed amendments, the vast majority of which had little or nothing to do with USDA programs or the Farm Bill.  However, it was unusual an 11th-hour package of agreed-to amendments was not included in the bill finally approved by the full Senate, particularly since Stabenow talked about creating such a list throughout floor action.    

Reid publicly acknowledged he wanted to see a package of agreed-to amendments to be voted upon, but that list eluded Stabenow Cochran (R, MS), and the shortened timeframe worked against getting such a package together in time for the final vote.  The two Senate ag leaders held to strict standards for amendments, demanding they not substantially modify the committee-passed bill and they be germane to the Farm Bill.  Stabenow reminded members 34 amendments accepted as part of the 2012 Farm Bill were part of the 2013 effort, and 18 amendments received floor action this year.

House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK), by his own description, is "wound up tighter than an eight-day clock" as he anticipates bringing his committee-approved 2013 Farm Bill to the House floor next week.  Lucas pointed out this week about half of the House membership was not in office during consideration of the 2008 Farm Bill, and the 2013 Farm Bill, estimated to save $40 billion in federal spending over the next decade by eliminating or reinventing more than 100 programs, is going to see "one heck of a bloody floor fight," according to one committee staffer.

The ag panel's bill got a boost this week when House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH), no fan of Farm Bills generally, said he'll vote for the bill even though he's not 100% happy with the committee product. The House Rules Committee is expected to issue its call for amendments by next Monday, with action taking up much of next week's floor schedule.

A separate shot in the arm came in the form of a letter organized by the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) urging swift adoption of the House Farm Bill, signed by 194 national, regional and state agriculture groups.

However, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) says he's skeptical the Farm Bill will get to the floor given it remains controversial within the Republican ranks. "Your guess is as good as mine," Hoyer said when asked if the Farm Bill will see floor action.    

Lucas and ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) continue to press leadership to allow the Farm Bill to come to the floor under a "modified open rule" or "closed rule."  A modified open rule would mean only germane amendments to the underlying Farm Bill would be considered. A closed rule would place strict parameters on which specific amendments would qualify for floor time and votes.  However, Boehner is expected to allow the bill to be considered under an "open rule," meaning any and all amendments can be filed, part of what he called "vigorous and open debate."  This led Lucas to speculate in an interview this week there will potentially be "hundreds of amendments" filed on the Farm Bill, but it's his hope nongermane, redundant or duplicative amendments will be disregarded and that ultimately the House will vote on 30-40 substantive amendments.

The big partisan battle will be over food stamps.  The House bill cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by more than $20 billion over 10 years; the Senate bill trims the program by $4.1 billion. Both panels contend their cuts are through elimination of fraud, waste and abuse and greater program efficiencies.  SNAP and other nutrition programs represent more than 80% of the bill's $940-billion, 10-year price tag.  House budget conservatives, who are agitating for deeper cuts in farm program payments, are pushing to see even deeper cuts in SNAP.  The opposite side of the question wants to pare back the cuts.  The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, DC, think tank is pushing hard for the House to remove SNAP and other nutrition assistance programs from the bill altogether, a move the GOP allows would kill the entire bill.

Other contentious issues are emerging. Boehner is waging a personal fight to derail the House bill's reinvention of dairy support programs - in 2012, he called it a "Soviet-style" support program designed by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) - that seeks to create a margin insurance program coupled with production controls.  The Senate bill carries nearly an identical program.  The Boehner move is supported by groups of independent dairymen around the country who oppose production controls, as well as the dairy processing industry.  However, the reinvented dairy support approach belongs to Peterson, and he'll not surrender on it easily.  In related action last week, the House Judiciary Committee, as part of its pro forma review of the Farm Bill's rulemaking requirements, added language from Chair Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) requiring USDA to conduct studies on the new "dairy stabilization program" as part of its formal rulemaking if the program survives the House floor and the Farm Bill conference committee. Goodlatte is expected to offer an amendment to kill the new dairy program.  

Another battleground will be federal crop insurance. While the Senate bill includes a cross-compliance provision between insurance and conservation programs, the House bill does not tie insurance premium subsidy to conservation compliance. A bill introduced last week Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R, NE) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D, CA) - that will become a floor amendment - would require cross-compliance. There will also be a fight over the level of crop insurance premium subsidies and who should qualify for that federal assistance.  The Senate bill cuts by 15% subsidies for producers with adjusted gross incomes over $750,000, and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is pushing hard to cut the subsidies even more by lowering the income threshold.  EWG also supports the Fortenberry-Thompson amendment. Other amendments include a move to limit the per-farmer premium subsidy to $50,000.  Another amendment would limit the guaranteed rate of return to crop insurers to 12%.

The Senate easily approved a series of procedural votes this week formally beginning consideration of the chamber's comprehensive immigration reform bill. Perhaps optimistically,   Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) set June 11 for a cloture vote to cut off debate on the controversial measure and move to passage.

The general consensus at this point is the package will be approved by the Senate, with a number of members holding their noses and voting "aye."  Sen. John McCain (R, AZ), a member of the Gang of Eight who drafted the immigration bill, said he's confident there are now 60 votes to cut off debate and move to final action; Reid told reporters getting to the magic 60 votes "should be pretty easy."  

GOP Senators are focusing the floor debate on border security as a condition of legalizing the immigrant status of undocumented aliens in the U.S.  Sen. Marco Rubio (R, FL) told a home state audience over the weekend he's in discussions on how to increase both the amount and efficiency of border security.  Rubio wants to see strict instructions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure border security dollars are spent properly and he wants to remove much of the discretion the bill grants DHS on determining when borders are "secure."   

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) moved this week to block an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R, TX) designed to beef up the border security section of the bill, referring to the Cornyn amendment as a "poison pill." Cornyn unveiled his amendment last week, an effort to boost border security spending by $1 billion per year for six years, and authorize 10,000 new border agents over five years, a move some estimate could cost nearly $18 billion. However, most Democrats and a handful of Republicans say the Cornyn approach is a step too far.  

Cornyn wants to make the path to citizenship for illegal aliens reliant on strict border security measurements, including giving federal agents full control of the border programs and requiring them to catch 90% of all individuals crossing illegally at all points along the border.  His bill would mandate fingerprint scanners and other "biometric" controls at all land and sea ports and full, mandatory implementation of the electronic E-Verify citizenship verification. He also wants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit to Congress a full implementation plan to control the border and cut waiting time at border crossings in half.

Ag grower groups are pushing to preserve the bill's ag worker provisions, negotiated between industry and the United Farm Workers union.  Few amendments are expected to be directed at the ag section of the bill, but Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) has said publicly he wants to see improvements in that section.

A key Republican vote is Sen. Orrin Hatch (R, UT), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Hatch, who voted to approve the committee bill, is noncommittal on whether he'll vote for final passage.  He intends to file amendments requiring undocumented workers to pay all back taxes owed or be disqualified from the path to citizenship. He wants to see language denying Social Security benefits to workers on wages earned prior to citizenship, as well as increasing the income requirements for so-called provisional residents.

Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D, VT) filed an amendment to ensure same sex couples are covered in the bill, and Rubio wants language that requires green card recipients to be proficient in English. The House is expected to eschew a comprehensive bill for the time being, moving several independent bills through various committees. House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) this week told committees with jurisdiction he wants their duties completed before the July 4 recess.  

However, a final legislative package has not been agreed on, and Boehner may wait and see what the bipartisan House group puts together, gauge the GOP reaction, and if positive enough, may then seek to replace sections of a broader bill with the individual bills approved by committee. Boehner has also not decided how he will treat the Senate bill if that chamber passes it.

Sen. David Vitter (R, LA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, this week sent a letter to EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe, asking once again that EPA release to him the "science behind several new air quality rules under the Clean Air Act."  "EPA has continually refused to make public the basic scientific data underlying virtually all of the agency's claimed benefits from Clean Air Act rules," Vitter said.  The Louisiana Senator said the agency's clean air rules - based on "secret data" - citing upcoming regulations, including EPA's much-touted ozone rule, "are expected to be some of the most costly federal regulations ever issued."  Vitter wants the data so the public and outside scientists can independently verify the EPA's claims.  Since 1997, EPA has resisted congressional calls for release of the air particulate rule data, citing confidentiality concerns and the importance of "limiting access to those researchers with legitimate scientific inquiry qualifications."

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), emerging as the biggest critic of Shuanghui International's proposed purchase of Smithfield Foods, this week called on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), an interagency panel which examines national security implications in such U.S. purchases by foreign buyers, to examine food safety and food security questions, and to consider pulling USDA and FDA into the review process.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack echoed Stabenow's food safety priority, saying USDA's role in the possible sale of Smithfield is food safety. "The proper role for us is to make sure that if the deal goes through, what is produced in this country is safe," he said.  

"This is the largest sale of a company in the United States to a Chinese state-owned enterprise, and I'm concerned in a number of ways about this," Stabenow was quoted this week.  Shuanghui International, however, is not owned by the Chinese government; several U.S. investment firms own shares in Shuanghui, according to a Smithfield spokesman. Stabenow also said she's concerned pork industry technology financed by U.S. tax dollars will be part of the deal.

Smithfield said this week in a briefing for ag groups in Washington, DC, it anticipates it will successfully clear the various federal regulatory hurdles by the third quarter of 2013.  Stabenow said she was encouraging "someone else, an American company" to bid on the firm, and Smithfield Vice President Dennis Treacy explained once the Shuanghui offer was announced, a 30-day "go-shop" period began during which other offers for Smithfield can be entertained. Treacy acknowledged there has been interest from other sectors.  

Last week, Stabenow said, "The (federal) agencies responsible for approving this possible merger must take China's and Shuanghui's troubling track record on food safety into account, and do everything in their power to ensure our national security and the health of our families are not jeopardized," Stabenow said. Smithfield responded: "The combined company will not import any product from China into the U.S.  As a result, the proposed combination does not have any implications for the U.S. food supply."

At the ag group briefing Smithfield this week in Washington, DC, Treacy said the company was "caught off guard" about a month ago when Shuanghui approached it with an offer.  He acknowledged Smithfield will become a stand-alone subsidiary of Shuanghui if the deal is approved, with an intact management team, no changes in brands, company personnel or facilities, and full recognition of all existing union contracts.  The company will also benefit from a strong price, no debt, expanded markets and the possibility of future branded product markets in China. Treacy said the incentive for Shuanghui to buy the company is Smithfield's tested and much-emulated integrator model, its efficiencies in production, environmental issues and animal care programs.  Shuanghui has no presence in the U.S.  In China, the company owns no farms, nor does it raise pigs.