Seed Shorts
    

header


July 12, 2013    
Inside This Issue.....
CSA Mid Year Meeting Just Around the Corner
House Passes Ag-Only Farm Bill 216-208
Can House, Senate "Farm Bills" be Reconciled without Nutrition Title?
House Hangs Tough on Immigration Stance; Reid Challenges Boehner
Boxer Wants Governors, EPA to Develop Stronger Regs on Ammonium Nitrate
Bill on Economic Impact of EPA Rules Approved by House Subcommittee
Vitter Wants White House Witnesses on Climate Change Hearing Panel
Agricultural Energy Consumers Association Management Report.
CSA Roster Advertisement Opportunity Available
Upcoming Meetings
_____________  
Like us on Facebook                          


CSA Mid Year Meeting Just Around the Corner


Don't Delay - Mark the Dates for the CSA Mid Year Meeting and call the InterContinental Hotel and book you room today!  September 24-25, 2013.

 

Guests can reserve rooms using the link, by calling reservations line at 1-888-666-5734 or by emailing [email protected]

Deadline for Group Rooms is August 24th ACT NOW! 

 


 

 

The meeting will be held at the InterContinental Clement Hotel on Cannery Row in Monterey, September 24-25, 2013  The InterContinental Hotel is located at  750 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA  93940.   Please make reservations directly with the hotel by calling (888) 666-5734 by  5:00 pm on Aug. 24, 2013 and please mention that you are with the California Seed Association to receive the group rate of $199.00. 

The golf tournament will again be a fundraiser for the "Ginny Patin Scholarship" and will be held on Tuesday, September 24th at 12:30 pm  at the  Laguna Seca Golf Course.  The tournament will begin with a shot-gun start at 12:30 pm and will include lunch on the carts.   For those of you who do not golf the Bocce Ball Tou
rnament will also be held on Tuesday afternoon as a fundraiser for the scholarship program.   The reception Tuesday evening will be sponsored by Seed Central. Seed Central is an initiative of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis and SeedQuest, joined by a growing number of companies and organizations in the global seed and food industry.

 

Seed Central's purpose is to energize the seed industry cluster surrounding UC Davis.  UC Davis is a world leader in seed, plant and agricultural sciences. More than 85 seed and seed-related companies are located near UC Davis and benefit greatly from its proximity.

Information and presentations about the tremendous work they are doing will be presented at this meeting.  All committees will meet on Wednesday, September 25th including a spinach meeting.   Participants can look forward to an engaging presentation by our keynote speaker this year.


The Mid Year meeting provides an opportunity for industry communication and a chance to get together with your business colleagues in a social atmosphere.  I look forward to seeing all of you in Monterey.   Registration materials and forms CLICK HERE 

 

 

House Passes Ag-Only Farm Bill 216-208

It was supposed to take just an hour, but wound up taking the whole day due to political maneuvering to kill the measure, but in the end House GOP leadership passed an agriculture- program-only Farm Bill yesterday by a narrow 216-208 vote.  No Democrat voted for the bill, as the minority invoked procedural after procedural vote to delay the measure and allow them to speak against it.  Sixteen Republicans voted against the bill, a far cry from the 62 who voted "nay" on the conventional Farm Bill three weeks ago.   

 

The strategy of splitting the House Agriculture Committee-approved Farm Bill into a farm program-only bill and one reauthorizing federal food stamp, nutrition and feeding programs was a highly controversial and risky political gamble for House leaders. The move pitted traditional ag interests opposed to the move - committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) actively spoke against the bill on the floor - against those who saw it as the only way to get a Farm Bill to conference with the Senate.  The move also guts the estimated savings in the bill, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting this week the bill as passed by the House represents about $13 billion in savings over 10 years, compared to nearly $40 billion in the committee-approved bill.   

 

Pledging to work with anyone, any time, House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK), called passage a "huge step forward" in getting the bill to conference with the Senate.  Peterson said after the vote, "The House majority's decision to ignore the will of more than 500 organizations with a stake in the farm bill, setting the stage for draconian cuts to nutrition programs and eliminating future farm bills altogether would be laughable if it weren't true."

 

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), displeased with the House action, released a statement, saying, "The bill passed by the House today is not a real Farm Bill, and is an insult to rural America, which is why it's strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups."  She said it's obvious the Senate Farm Bill will be the base bill for conference committee action.   

 

The bill approved yesterday took the ag committee-passed Farm Bill, generally as amended on the House floor three weeks ago, removed Title IV, the nutrition section, and added a section repealing 1949's so-called "permanent law." It's these farm laws passed in the 1930s and 1940s - setting archaic supports for just a few commodities and requiring reauthorizing a Farm Bill every five years - which make up the fall back should a new Farm Bill not be enacted.  The 2013 bill replaces 1949, and requires "permanent" law be updated every five years.  No other amendments were permitted.

 

Ag Opposed the Split --Farm and crop production groups generally supported keeping the two sections of the bill in one legislative package. A letter supporting this approach from over 530 state, regional and national groups went to House leadership last week.  However, nearly all groups were careful not to actively oppose the ag-only bill, but several expressed concern about repealing 1949 permanent law and replacing it with the 2013 farm program language - particularly if they disagree with commodity program rewrites - without committee discussion or floor debate. By making the 2013 version "permanent" law, commodity programs continue if Congress never writes another Farm Bill.  However, this provision is likely not going to survive in conference, insiders said, and critics contend it will make writing future farm bills tougher.

 

Lucas grudgingly agreed to the floor strategy earlier this week, but his public statements make it clear his goal was to try anything that got his committee's bill into conference with the Senate's approved bill, where critics argue the nutrition title could be reattached to the conference report.   

 

House Democrats fighting to save the food stamp program denounced the strategy, taking to the floor throughout the day and accusing Republicans of taking food away from children. They fear a stand-alone nutrition bill may never appear or that deeper spending cuts would be demanded on the House floor.  Outside groups who strongly opposed the Farm Bill defeated last month, declared their opposition to an ag-only bill claiming it does not cut USDA spending enough, particularly in the crop insurance title.  Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also said he wants to see the Farm Bill contain both ag and nutrition programs, even though President Obama threatened a veto of the bill approved by the full committee and the revised package.

 
Can House, Senate "Farm Bills" be Reconciled without Nutrition Title?

Ag insiders this week contend House leadership may have won the Farm Bill battle, but may lose the war to reauthorize farm programs as the House and Senate Agriculture Committees now try and reconcile the two bills - the Senate bill conventional, nutrition title intact, and the House bill with no nutrition title - creating a package both chambers will approve and the President will sign.

 

The simple answer to whether the two bills can be conferenced is "yes," experts say.  The two bills are more than 80% alike and, the nutrition title notwithstanding, can be blended into a third version of farm program reauthorization. Conventional Farm Bill wisdom holds the House writes a bill, the Senate writes a bill, and a third bill is written in conference committee, sometimes bearing little resemblance to the chambers' respective legislation.

 

However, while Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) says she'll "deal with whatever they send us...and send something responsible back," Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), House ag panel ranking member, said this week he sees a rocky road to conference.

 

"There has been no assurance from House leadership that passing this bill will allow us to begin to conference with the Senate in a timely manner," Peterson told CQ after he voted against the bill.  He contends House leaders told their members there would be no conference committee action until "concessions" are agreed to by the Senate before conference, "disregarding regular order...leaving the bill hanging with nothing getting done."  House leaders have made no public statements about concessions as a precursor to naming conferees.

 

If conferees do not agree on including a nutrition title, it can be reauthorized independently as its operation does not rely on being part of the Farm Bill.  House ag Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK) said his committee would tackle the programs under its jurisdiction, but if that failed, the Appropriations Committee could take on the job of ensuring nutrition program funding.

 

Ag groups are cautiously optimistic a new bill they can support will emerge from the conference committee.  However, the National Corn Growers Assn. (NCGA) said in a statement, "We urge members to the House to approve the bill and we expect immediate action by a conference committee...our action in no way reflects our approval of its (the bill's) contents or the manner in which it came to floor.  Unless significant change is made to the bill in conference committee, we will strongly urge its rejection by the Senate and the House."

 
House Hangs Tough on Immigration Stance; Reid Challenges Boehner: Take Senate Bill


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) challenged House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) to bring the Senate's immigration bill and Farm Bill to the House floor, but Boehner had none of it as the House narrowly approved its Farm Bill, and the Speaker told reporters this week, "The Senate immigration bill is dead on arrival - again."
 

Boehner has made it clear over the last several weeks his party will not accept the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform package or its approach to immigration law rewrite, and will pass several shorter bills to rewrite federal immigration law.  Further, he said he won't bring a bill to the floor not supported by the majority of the House GOP.  While the Senate came to an 11th-hour compromise over the path to citizenship for illegal aliens by beefing up its border security actions, the House GOP has rejected the Senate's citizenship approach. 
 

This week, Rep. Raul Labrador (R, ID) floated the idea of "legal status" for undocumented workers, a step short of citizenship.  Democrats rejected the idea saying all 11 million undocumented workers in the U.S. must be placed on a path to citizenship. 
 

House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) has moved five bills through his committee.  One of Goodlatte's efforts rewrites ag guest worker law, but in a manner different from that negotiated between ag growers and the United Farm Workers, underlying the Senate's approach.  The other bills deal with border security, interior enforcement, employment verification (E-Verify), and high-tech worker visas.  This week it was announced the committee will take up a bill designed to deal with so-called "dreamers," the American-born children or children brought to the U.S. by their undocumented parents. The approach would call for steps necessary to reach citizenship.

 
Boxer Wants Governors, EPA to Develop Stronger Regs on Ammonium Nitrate


Following a hearing two weeks ago in the Senate Committee on Environmental & Public Works Committee on the causes behind a fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) sent a letter to all 50 governors this week calling on them to develop strong regulations on the handling of ammonium nitrate. 
 

"I urge you to review the applicable requirements in your state and in the interest of saving lives, adopt policies you believe will prevent loss of life while allowing the use of ammonium nitrate with appropriate protections or the use of alternatives," she wrote.  She also told reporters she intends to hold more hearings on the need for rules.
 

Boxer, who says some of the governors have resisted stronger rules, also called on EPA to update its guidance on ammonium nitrate storage and handling, and to change regulations on risk management plans companies must follow.  EPA said it's "examining its legal authorities." The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) said the industry is working to ensure companies comply with the rules already in force, and said if the Boxer letter enhances that effort, "we're all for it."

 
Bill on Economic Impact of EPA Rules Approved by House Subcommittee

Any EPA regulation costing industry more than $1 billion and negatively impacting the economy would be prohibited under a bill approved this week by the House Energy & Commerce Committee's subcommittee on energy and power subcommittee.  

 

The subcommittee chair Rep. Edward Whitfield (D, KY) said the bill requires the Secretary of Energy to review any EPA proposal for impact on consumer energy prices, energy supplies and reliance on foreign energy sources, and to consult with the administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor on adverse economic impact of EPA proposed rules. Whitfield called these requirements necessary to curb EPA overregulation.

 

The committee rejected an amendment that would have required the energy secretary to also evaluate the positive impacts of any proposed EPA rule, even after Rep. Joe Barton (R, TX) said the subcommittee should accept the amendment and work on language improvements.

 
Vitter Wants White House Witnesses on Climate Change Hearing Panel

A July 18 hearing in the Senate Environment & Public Works on "Climate Change: It's Happening Now" will not include Administration witnesses says panel Chair Barbara Boxer (D, CA), and that decision has drawn criticism from committee Republicans.   

 

Committee ranking member Sen. David Vitter (R, LA) told Boxer in a letter he wants her to reverse her decision to keep government witnesses off the hearing witness list.  Citing President Obama's Administration climate change initiative, Vitter said, "Because of the significant interest in and the impacts of these (Obama plan) actions, we request you reconsider your decision to exclude the participation of government witnesses."

 

"An Administration taking such sweeping actions on climate change should be ready to defend those actions...we are certain the President would accommodate a request to have his officials represent what he so proudly touts as being good for America."  Vitter wants to question Administration officials on the "scope, purpose and consequences of such unilateral action."

 
Agricultural Energy Consumers Association Management Report

The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Phase 2 2014 General Rate Case (GRC) continues, to move forward, AECA has submitted extensive data requests as part of our discovery in the case to better understand PG&E's proposal. AECA will be part of that conversation once the process begins. Due to the importance of this matter, a summary of the Phase 2 proposal from PG&E is repeated in this month's Management Report. Once we have reviewed detailed information from PG&E about their proposal, we will begin developing AECA's strategy and testimony in the proceeding.

Phase 2 consists of the marginal cost and revenue allocation portion of the GRC for each customer class. The table below shows the proposed revenue allocation, by customer class.

CSA Membership Roster Advertisement Opportunity Available

Businesses that continue to advertise regardless of economic times have a competitive advantage over businesses that trim their ad budgets.

Competitive advantage
Advertising during a sluggish economy clearly creates a competitive advantage with a majority of executives agreeing that seeing a company advertise during slower times makes them feel more positive about the company's commitment to its products and services. But perhaps most important is staying at the top of buyers' minds when purchase decisions are made.

The bottom line is clear: If a company is not communicating with customers when they enter the market, then that company will not be considered in the buying decision. That fundamental truth does not change, regardless of the economy.

While many companies readily understand the value of short-term advertising � generating new sales, generating repeat business from existing customers and generating new leads that turn into future sales � it can be more difficult to comprehend the long-term value. Think of a snowball rolling down a mountain � consistent advertising has a cumulative effect. The more familiar buyers are with your brand, the more likely they are to purchase the brand.

Don't Miss Your Opportunity to  Advertise in the
2013/2014 Membership Directory ADVERTISE  TODAY!

The CSA Membership Roster is an excellent source of information for both members and non-members of the seed industry.  If you choose to sponsor the Roster, your company's name will reach companies and individuals who are your potential customers, not to mention the advantage of keeping your company's name in clear view of your existing customers.

For the 2013-2014 CSA Membership Roster we are offering business card size sponsorships, and full page displays.  Special position displays are also available.

Upcoming Meetings

     

 

    
  • September 24-25, 2013 - CSA Mid Year Meeting at the InterContinental Hotel in Monterey, CA