Seed Shorts
  


header


June 16, 2016     


Like us on Facebook

Inside This Issue.....
Seed Industry Conference: June 30th
UC Davis Seed Biotechnology Center Courses & Events
California Legislative Update
USDA Extends "Actively Engaged" Registration Deadline
Deal on GE Food Labeling "Inching" to Completion
Alexander Moves to Block DOL Overtime Rule
Supreme Court Rules Landowners can Challenge Federal Wetland Orders: WOTUS Encouraged
Senate Approves First TSCA Reform in Four Decades, Sends to President
House Judiciary Panel Moves Bill to End Federal Court "Deference" to Agency Actions
What's the fate of European Roundup
Senate Swings in to Back Dealers on OSHA Controversy
House Approves TSCA Reform Bill, Senate Expected to Follow
House Votes to Put Brakes on Ozone Rule
Dodd-Frank "Substitute" Unveiled by House GOP
Upcoming Meetings
Seed Industry Conference: June 30th


The 2016 Seed Industry Conference will take place on June 30th at The Stanislaus County Agricultural Center in Modesto, CA


The Seed Industry Conference (SIC) is specifically designed for key production and field personnel. This is a great opportunity for new hires at your company to learn more about the issues facing the seed industry or refresh some skills and tools for current employees at your company.   
The topics at the SIC address will focus on current issues of importance to all those involved in the many different aspects of the seed industry. 
  • Basic Phytosanitary 101: Key Updates from Around The World
  • Collaboration for Plant Pathogen Strain Identification (CPPSI)
  • New and Modern Plant Breeding Techniques
  • Seed Treatment and Priming Techniques
  • California Seed Law, A Model for Other States and Countries
  • Honey Bees and Seed Production
  • The Strategic Partnership Program of the FBI and Seed Espionage 
Who Benefits From Attending The Seed Industry Conference?
 
Anyone who is interested in the opportunity to learn timely information on a wide variety of topics pertinent to the seed industry should plan to attend the 2016 Seed Industry Conference, (SIC). Our guest speakers are experts in their fields who will come together to share their knowledge and first hand experiences. All of the combined presenters represent decades of experience and knowledge in the seed industry.
 
We will start the day with basic phytosanitary 101: key updates from around the world, followed by presentations on the collaboration for plant pathogen strain identification (CPPSI), new plant breeding  techniques, seed treatment and techniques, the California seed law, the FBI strategic  partnership program and seed espionage, honey bee health and seed production and more. There will be time for questions following each speaker's presentation.
 
Your employees with many years of experience and those who are new to the industry will both gain invaluable knowledge and new information by attending the SIC. Students are welcome to attend and we are extending a special student registration rate. 
 
The basic purpose of the conference is to provide an educational event for both managerial and technical personnel specific to the seed industry. The conference also provides an opportunity for networking with others in our industry.  We are confident that the 2016 California Industry Conference will be beneficial to all attendees.



UC Davis Seed Biotechnology Center Courses & Events



The following upcoming courses and events are available at the UC Davis Seed Biotechnology Center. Register soon to take advantage of early bird discounts.


Courses Offered
 
September

December

February

Events

California Legislative Update
By Dennis Albiani, Legislative Advocate


Ag Overtime Bill Defeated


Two weeks ago months of a collaborative lobbying campaign came to a culmination with the long awaited vote on AB 2757 (Gonzalez) which would have altered the current overtime requirements for Ag employees covered under Wage Order 14.  Working alongside a coalition of agriculture interests and suppliers, the association successfully killed the bill.  The final vote was 38-35. The bill needed 41 votes to pass.


Currently, agricultural employees are required to be paid overtime after 10 hours in a day and 6 days in the week. This legislation would have mandated overtime to be paid at 1.5 times pay after 8 hours in a day, and five days worked in a week.  Double time would have still been required after 12 hours, as already mandated in existing law.    


The coalition focused on the unique aspects of the industry managing planting, harvesting seasonality and weather, the impact on the gross income of the farmworker if they were restricted to 40 hours in a week and the impact on the long term viability of the industry.  The grassroots efforts of farmers and association members meeting with legislators, logging in calls and emails and writing letters helped defeat this measure.  Additionally, strategically building relationships with key urban legislators assisted in the effort as well. The author, Lorena Gonzalez, who is chair of the powerful Assembly Appropriations Committee has stated an intention to bring the legislation back.  Diligence on the part of the association and industry will be required to continue to manage the issue. 


Here is a link to the final vote count, which may be of interest to association members since several key agricultural legislators voted in favor of the legislation. 


Legislation Further Regulating Neonicitioids Fails


Legislation that would require additional regulations on neonicotinoids pesticides failed the State Senate two weeks ago with a vote of 15-18, 21 votes are needed to pass.  SB 1282 (Leno) would have required labeling of commercially available seeds and plants sold at retail establishments that have been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide with the words "STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: MAY HARM BEES" and have a logo to be designed by the director.  More concerning, was the legislation would have usurped the scientifically based review process ongoing at the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to determine classification of pesticide.  The legislation would have mandated that neonicotinoid pesticides be classified as a restricted materials by January 1, 2018.  Currently DPR is reviewing this class of pesticides to determine

appropriate science based category and regulations. 


Prohibition on New Wells Passes Senate


Legislation that would prohibit new wells from being drilled passed the Senate two weeks ago with the bare minimum votes 21-17.  SB 1317 (Wolk) would usurp local control by requiring conditional use permits for new wells and prohibiting the issuance of permits for wells in basins that are in or near overdraft.  Many argue the bill conflicts with the recently enacted Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because it dictates how locals must proceed and prohibits them from issuing permits unless they have an ordinance that takes similar actions.  SGMA was structured to have local management or groundwater resources, planning and implementation. 


The bill is headed to the Assembly Water parks and Wildlife Committee where it will be heard and may meet with more skeptical legislators.  The association has joined a coalition of local government and agriculture entities to oppose the legislation. 


Organic Farming Legislation Passes Assembly


An effort to address perceived inequality in fees, increase enforcement and reform the State Organic Program passed its first committee two weeks ago.  AB 1826 (Stone) which is sponsored by the organic farmers passed the Assembly two weeks ago.  The legislation includes a number of reforms such as changing the composition of the Organic Advisory Committee and provides the secretary additional authority to enforce the act.  The most controversial element is the fee structure. The minimum fees have been raised and the overall income has been capped.  The bill will continue to evolve and be amended as it moves through the process.



USDA Extends "Actively Engaged" Registration Deadline


USDA has extended by 30 days the deadline for farmers and ranchers to record with the department farm organization "structures" related to the department's required definition of "actively engaged in farming" when it comes to who qualifies for federal income support payments.


Farms now have until July 1 to complete any necessary restructuring or to finalize organizational changes, USDA said. 


The 2014 Farm Bill directed USDA to define "actively engaged" for payment qualification purposes.  The final rule sets limits on the number of individuals who can qualify, and only a single payment limit for management is allowed under the rule.  However, up to two additional qualifying managers can be requested for large and "complex operations." 


The rule doesn't apply to farming operations completely run by families.  The rule doesn't change the current regulations on contributions of land, capital, equipment or labor, or the existing rules related to landowners with a risk in the crop or to their spouses.  Payment limits are generally set at $125,000 per individual or entity.



Deal on GE Food Labeling "Inching" to Completion 


The chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture have likely spent more time together battling over genetically engineered food labeling than they did debating parts of the 2014 Farm Bill, but such tenacity is yielding more frequent and longer meetings, a dwindling list of differences and the first glimmer of hope a deal is in the offing.


The last issues to be resolved, according to reports, include final language on federal preemption of state laws, the best manner in which to exempt meat and dairy already regulated by USDA and how smaller, regional companies will be handled under the bill.


With the July 1 effective date for the Vermont GE labeling law looming, the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food (CSAF) last week issued a formal challenge to Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts (R, KS) and ranking member Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) effectively saying, "Enough is enough," an agreement is needed immediately.   


CSAF co-chairs Chuck Conner, president/CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), and Pamela Bailey, president/CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Assn. (GMA), said:  "There is simply no more time for a compromise to be reached.  The issues are well defined, have been fully debated and now is it is time to get in a room and reach a final deal."  


The American Feed Industry Assn. (AFIA), an active member of CSAF, said in a message to all 100 Senators last week:  "There is no time left to parse words or debate issues when they're as well-defined and vetted as those surrounding federal GE labeling.  Sen. Roberts and Sen. Stabenow must sit down immediately, finalize their good faith compromise, communicate that bipartisan agreement to their respective caucuses and get on with the business of final Senate action on a federal standard for GE food labeling."


Once a deal is reached, the pressure is on to get at least 60 strong votes in favor of the compromise package, with Roberts charged with collecting at least 40 Republicans and Stabenow expected to deliver at least 20 Democrats.  Industry will into a full-court lobbying press so the Senate can approve the package and the House can substitute the Senate bill for its previously approved labeling legislation. 

 
Alexander Moves to Block DOL Overtime Rule


The Department of Labor's new overtime rule - more than doubling the exempt salary threshold and potentially making up to 4.2 million additional workers eligible for time-and-a-half overtime compensation - has drawn the attention of a powerful senior Senator who intends to try and block the DOL action.


Sen. Lamar Alexander (R, TN), who chairs the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee (HELP) and is a member of the Appropriations Committee, said last week he'll introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block the overtime rule.  Such a resolution - which needs a House companion - would most likely draw from President Obama a veto threat.  At the same time, federal legislation - S. 2707/HR 4773, the "Protecting Workplace Advancement & Opportunity Act" - has been introduced.  The bills would send the overtime rule back to DOL for a more comprehensive economic analysis before implementation can begin.  The rule is effective December 1, 2016.


Also in the offing is a Senate Appropriations Committee action to add language to the FY2017 Labor-HHS spending bill to stop the rule, but this move would also likely draw a White House veto threat.


Opponents of the rule are also expected to mount federal court challenges, using the rule's automatic pay increase provisions as grounds for their action.  Critics say DOL's formula for determining such increases are unprecedented and likely falls outside the department's authority. 


The new overtime pay standard, last updated in 2004, raises from $23,660 to $47,476 the exempt annual salary threshold over which overtime need not be paid.  At the same time, the rule increases by 34% the total annual compensation needed to exempt "highly compensated" workers, hiking it to $134,004 per year. 


Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary Tom Perez said the new rule could increase overall wages paid by $1.2 billion over 10 years, adding the new standard will increase from the current 7% to 35% the number of full-time salaried workers who qualify for overtime.


Business groups say some companies will get creative to avoid paying overtime, and some options may erode schedule flexibility and employee morale.  Some firms will switch salaried employees to hourly workers, holding those workers to a strict 40-hour work weeks, bringing on part-time employees to cover additional hours.  Alternatively, some employers will cut base salaries to avoid paying overtime, and still others will maintain salaried employees, closely monitor hours worked and adjust salaries to account for overtime, reducing benefits and the number of full-time employees to control costs.

 
Supreme Court Rules Landowners Can Challenge Federal Wetland Orders; WOTUS Foes Encouraged



The U.S. Supreme Court last month unanimously ruled private landowners and individuals can sue the federal government, demanding "prompt judicial review" by federal courts of wetland designations by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  At issue is the federal government's legal authority to designate otherwise dry land as a protected wetland, and last month's decision likely kicks open the door to multiple federal court challenges.

 
The government argued that landowners could go without CWA permitting and challenge any subsequent enforcement action that designated lands as protected wetlands, or an owner could seek permits - a complicated and expensive process - and challenge determinations made after those permits were issued.   Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that the high court disagreed with the government on both counts.


While the decision was unanimous, four of the eight sitting justices wrote opinions.  Special attention is being paid to the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a swing vote by both the White House and industry, state and private plaintiffs in dozens of related legal actions to stop EPA and the Corps from extending their authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) using the controversial "waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)" regulations.  Those regulations have been blocked by a federal appeals court pending higher federal court decisions and the likelihood the Supreme Court will be petitioned to make the final decision on whether WOTUS stands or falls.


An EPA spokesperson said the agency is "reviewing the decision with the Department of Justice and the Army Corps of Engineers," adding last month's high court ruling has no effect on the WOTUS rule or the "scope of CWA jurisdiction." 


What makes the Kennedy opinion so interesting to supporters of the high court's decision - and those who wish to kill WOTUS - was Kennedy's statement during oral arguments that the CWA may be "unconstitutionally vague."  Reports indicate his opinion last month's reiterated that concern, with Kennedy writing the CWA "continues to raise troubling questions" on private landowners rights to the "full use and enjoyment" of private property.  It was Kennedy's opinion in a related 2006 CWA wetlands case which EPA says compelled it to ultimately issue the WOTUS rule.


However, environmental groups contend Kennedy's opinion actually goes to the validity of WOTUS, referred to by EPA as "the clean water rule," and they contend jurisdiction and authority are clarified by last month's action. Veteran agriculture and industry attorneys, however, contend there isn't much meat in the Kennedy opinion to indicate how the court might rule should WOTUS reach them. 


Sen. John Barrasso (R, WY) said the decision "is the latest blow to president's regulatory rampage." 


Several agriculture groups filed amicus briefs in the case.  The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) said "it's hard to overstate the importance of this ruling," and the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA) said the Supreme Court decision is important because it removes a barrier to challenging federal wetland designations, and is a "major victory for landowners across the U.S."  The "subjective nature" of wetland determinations and "inconsistent application" of the CWA made the law "ripe for a challenge," said NCBA.



Senate Approves First TSCA Reform in Four Decades, Sends to President


The first true rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 40 years came to fruition last week as the Senate finally approved the largely bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, clearing it for President Obama's signature. 


The voice vote approval came after Sen. Rand Paul (R, KY) lifted a hold on the bill.


Passage of the reform bill was praised by chemical makers, users, environmentalists and food safety groups.  TSCA prescribes EPA how will evaluate hazardous chemicals for safety, and how the manufacture, transportation, sale, handling and use of the chemicals will be regulated.  


Industry likes the bill because the new regulatory system authorized is predictable and science-based. 


The bill enjoyed largely bipartisan support from its inception, though there were issues which threatened to derail effort, including states' ability to set their own chemical safety laws.  States with safety laws on the books prior to April, 2016, can continue to operate under those laws by seeking a federal waiver from the new TSCA requirements. 


The new law allows EPA to collect information about a chemical before making a determination of use or risk.  Improved are protections for proprietary company information and new system under which new chemicals can receive priority review and approval before they go on sale.


Also allowed under the new law are use of risk-based safety standards for all new and existing chemicals, with a worst-first approach to priority review; expansion of EPA authority to require companies to submit health and safety data for untested chemicals, while cutting animal testing; new funding for agency implementation of the new law; deadlines for company compliance, and "creation of a more uniform regulatory system to ensure interstate commerce is not unduly burdened, while retaining a significant role for states in ensuring chemical safety." 


House Judiciary Panel Moves Bill to End Federal Court "Deference" to Agency Actions


A 30-year-old Supreme Court decision which says federal judges may defer to "reasonable agency decisions" when underlying federal law is vague, could become obsolete after House Judiciary Committee action last week advancing a bill that would end judicial deference. 


No longer would federal agencies be given the benefit of the doubt when rulemakings and other actions are challenged in federal court.  The practice is based on a 1984 case - Chevron v. NRDC - and is a big part of the Administration's defense of its Clean Power Plan on CO2/carbon recapture, and other regulatory initiatives.


The bill approved by the judiciary panel on a 12-8 party line vote would require federal judges to view challenges to agency actions with no deference to agency expertise or interpretation of underlying legislative authority.  The bill also nullifies what's known as the Auer doctrine, where federal courts are to give deference to agencies' "reasonable" interpretation of their own rulemakings.  

 
What's the Fate of European Roundup?



A month ago, reports out of the European Union (EU) indicated glyphosate (Roundup) was on an easy path to a multi-year reauthorization of its safe use approval.  Then the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a tenuous connection of a single chemical in glyphosate to "probable" cancer.  Three weeks ago the European Commission (EC), under heavy political pressure from environmentalists and anti-biotechnology activists, said it could only muster enough support for perhaps a one-year renewal of Europe's most widely used herbicide.


As of last week, the fate of glyphosate is still unsettled, and its current approval runs out June 30.  The EC has not been able to get a sufficient majority of EU member nations - enough countries representing 65% of the bloc's population - to approve the renewal.  The next EC action is set for June 23-24 - the same days as the United Kingdom's referendum (the "Brexit") on its EU membership - and no one's betting either way on the fate of glyphosate in the EU given Germany has already said it will abstain from the vote.  France and Italy have made similar statements, according to media reports.


EU farmers are none-too-happy with the EC's inability to handle the renewal, and producer groups across the continent said without glyphosate farm income, as well as safe and quality food production are at risk.  They also contend using glyphosate allows no-till production, an environmentally friendly practice.  The farmers said they support the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which published a positive review and assessment of glyphosate safety.


In U.S. news related to the WHO glyphosate cancer determination, the House Science, Space & Technology Committee last week sent a letter to EPA as part of an investigation into whether the agency somehow influenced the WHO glyphosate report, in part because of EPA's posting and almost immediate withdrawal from its website of an internal committee report saying glyphosate is not carcinogenic.  Part of the House committee's interest comes from the fact EPA staff participated in both the WHO and EPA reviews of glyphosate, yet the two reports appear to be in conflict.


EPA previously told the science committee the posting of its CARC report was a mistake and that the agency's review of glyphosate continues. However, the posting and withdrawal of the report spawned initial committee interest in the broader issue of the respective reviews and glyphosate safety.


"Given the apparent contradictions of the CARC (EPA) and IARC (EU) finding for glyphosate...the committee has concerns about the integrity" of the WHO review, the role of EPA officials in that review and how that participation may have influenced the outcome of the EPA study, Reuters reports this week after having seen the House committee letter.


The House Agriculture Committee is also looking into not only the glyphosate review process at EPA, but the agency's handling of its review of the safety of atrazine.  The agriculture panel wants the agency to explain what steps are necessary to finalize the glyphosate study, which it expected to see in mid-2015. 


At the same time,  the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on agriculture/FDA, sent a letter to National Institutes of Health (NIH) Administrator Francis Collins seeking information on how an $860,000 NIH grant to WHO factors into the WHO/IARC review of glyphosate.  Subcommittee Chair Bob Aderholt (R, AL) wants to know why NIH is partially funding and lending its credibility to WHO's determinations on issues ranging from glyphosate to red meat and the probability of cancer links, particularly since WHO findings are often in conflict with U.S. decisions.  Aderholt told Collins, "The...conclusions (by WHO) appear to be the result of a significantly flawed process; unfortunately, because the process was funded through NIH, the conclusions will be taken more seriously than they might have been."


The EU has almost routinely renewed the glyphosate approval given supporters of the herbicide point to decades of research and safe use, as well as over 7,000 studies attesting to glyphosate safety.  If the glyphosate approval lapses, industry experts predict hundreds of lawsuits against the EC will be filed almost immediately.

 
Senate Swings in to Back Dealers on OSHA Controversy
        
Sen. John Hoeven (R, ND) championed the side of fertilizer dealers last week in their battle with OSHA over the agency's decision to impose its Process Safety Management (PSM) standards on retail dealers. Hoeven successfully added language to the Senate's FY20176 Labor-HHS appropriations bill blocking OSHA's action without a formal rulemaking process.


Hoeven said the rule hasn't been implemented yet and nine North Dakota dealers have closed their doors, with others saying they'll close after spring planting.  His appropriations language, he said, simply ensures affected stakeholders can weigh in on the rulemaking process.


The OSHA rule, developed in the wake of the West Fertilizer Co. explosion in Texas, imposes much stricter federal restrictions on fertilizer sales, particularly those of anhydrous ammonia, unless retail dealers meet the same restrictions as wholesalers.  Hoeven said the rule as currently written would force several dealers to cease selling anhydrous, limiting the amount of nitrogen fertilizer available to farmers. 


The Agricultural Retailers Assn. (ARA), the Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and several national farm organizations urged the Senate to block the OSHA administrative move by withholding budget money for the agency to implement its plan.  The agency's action on PSM, holding retailers to the same standards as wholesalers, would affect an estimated 3,800 agricultural retailers across the country.


The move to withhold funding pending formal rulemaking comes after the ag coalition was able to insert language in the FY2016 omnibus spending package delaying OSHA implementation until October, 2016.  ARA and TFI have also sued the Department of Labor (DOL) for "regulating by memo" and ignoring federal rulemaking procedures.

 
House Panel Approves Water Resources Development Act Package


Clearing the way for action by the full House, the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has approved its version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).  The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee approved its version in late April.  


Included in House bill is an amendment offered by Rep. Rodney Davis (R, IL) and accepted by voice vote, directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into alternative ways the Inland Waterways Trust Fund can be managed, including transferring management to a separate federal corporation.


The bill also carries language that would move the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from discretionary to mandatory spending, meaning Congress would be compelled to fund the trust fund, even in times of spending shortfalls, and overall, could mean more federal investment in expansions and upgrades.  The 2014 WRDA bill called for conventional increases in the HMTF annually under discretionary spending. 


Industry is unsure about the language, and the American Soybean Assn. (ASA) last month said it is awaiting the final evaluation of a task force set up by the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) before taking a position.




House Votes to Put Brakes on Ozone Rule
        
Joining the growing list of EPA proposed and final rules the House has moved to either block or kill, the House last week approved a bill that would slow down an agency rulemaking setting new ground-level ozone standards.  The vote was 234-177, with seven Democrats joining the GOP in moving to rework the ozone rulemaking.


President Obama said he'll veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. 


The bill is designed to extend and make more flexible state compliance deadlines so EPA can rework the rule to take into account the costs of the rule as well as prospective human health effects.  The bill extends the current "unrealistic" review period for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from five to 10 years, a move designed to ease the regulatory burden on local communities, states and industry.  The bill also streamlines the permitting process, requires compliance guidance to be issued at the time of rule/standard publication, and requires consideration of "public health, welfare, social, economic or energy effects" as listed by EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee before setting or revising a NAAQS. 


With EPA's proposal of two separate ozone standards in eight years - providing no compliance guidance until March, 2015 on its first ozone rule - several areas of the country are just now coming into compliance or "attainment" with a 2008 ozone standard.  Then in October, 2015, EPA issued a second ozone standard, putting states in the position of having to comply with two different standards at the same time.


Opponents of the ozone rulemaking contend the most recent standard setting is unnecessary because of the 2008 standard, as well as the fact ozone levels have dropped 30% since 1980.  Some parts of the country, they also argue, are natural "ozone zones," areas which will never be in compliance with the standards. 


Rep. Pete Olson (R, TX), author of the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, explained during floor debate nothing in his bill as approved by the House Energy & Commerce Committee changes any part or EPA authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  He said the bill takes on the double compliance burden of two separate ozone standards based on listening to state regulators.  The bill protects states already on the road to compliance, postponing diversion of state assets from complying with the 2008 standard to meet the new standard that even EPA projects will be met through measures already in place under the CAA.   


Dodd-Frank "Substitute" Unveiled by House GOP
        
The House Financial Services Committee this week unveiled a draft bill - a compilation of more than a dozen regulatory relief bills already before the House - that some call a Dodd-Frank "substitute," repealing and replacing most of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank). President Obama calls the plan as outlined by committee Chair Jeb Hensarling (R, TX) in a speech to the Economic Club of New York, "crazy," and the White House press office said the plan "doesn't make any sense."


The bill has little or no chance of action this year, but is seen as a place-holder for the next Congress, particularly if a Republican wins the White House and Congress remains under GOP control.  


The Hensarling bill - The Financial CHOICE Act - would allow financial institutions to operate with far less federal oversight than under Dodd-Frank, but the price for regulatory relief would be much higher mandatory capital requirements per institution, and much harsher penalties for bad actors.  Hensarling said, "The...Act will impose the toughest penalties in history for financial fraud, self-dealing and deception."


The new legislation would eliminate "too-big-to-fail" federal bailouts by eliminating Dodd-Frank's Orderly Liquidation Authority, which Hensarling called "a taxpayer bailout fund which can borrow trillions and trillions of taxpayer money in order to resolve large Wall Street banks."  The liquidation authority is also how federal regulators implement a prioritized selection of creditors for federal relief, and it would be replaced with a new Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, setting up a new subchapter of the federal bankruptcy code to address failed financial institutions. 


Also repealed is the so-called Volcker Rule, action which prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading investments for their own accounts.  "Of the 450 financial institutions that failed during or as a result of the (financial) crisis, not a single one failed because of proprietary trading," Hensarling said.


At the same time, all federal financial regulations would have to pass a cost-benefit test, authorized by the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.  This would change the existing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) into the Consumer Financial Opportunity Commission (CFOC), which would have the dual responsibility of consumer protection and oversight to ensure competitive markets.  The new commission would have five members and the commission would be subject to congressional oversight and appropriations.  All major regulations would have to be approved by Congress.


The bill also would reauthorize the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) for five years, "with funding, structural and enforcement reforms."  The SEC would be allowed to triple fines for both administrative and civil actions.  Also, the SEC could impose sanctions equal to investor losses in cases involving fraud, deceit, manipulation or deliberate or reckless disregard for regulatory requirements.  All criminal fines would be increases, and all fines collected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board would be used for deficit reduction.

 
Upcoming Meetings
      
2016
  • Seed Industry Conference: June 30th at The Stanislaus County Agricultural Center in Modesto, CA

     
  • Mid Year Meeting: September 20-21, 2016 at The Monterey Plaza Hotel on Cannery Row  


California Seed Association | 1521 I Street | Ph: 916-441-2251 | Fx: 916-446-1063 | Sacramento | CA | 95814