Senators
closing in on border security compromise [Associated Press]
White
House-backed immigration legislation gained momentum in the Senate on Thursday
as lawmakers closed in on a bipartisan compromise to spend tens of billions of
dollars stiffening the bill's border security requirements without delaying
legalization for millions living in the country unlawfully.…Under the emerging
compromise, the government would grant legal status to immigrants living in the
United States illegally at the same time the additional security was being put
into place. Green cards, which signify permanent residency status, would be
withheld until the security steps were complete. Officials said the plan
envisions doubling the size of the Border Patrol with 20,000 new agents,
completing 700 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico and purchasing
new surveillance drones to track would-be illegal border crossers. The cost of
the additional agents alone was put at $30 billion over a decade.
Effort
to protect California egg law in House farm bill fails [Los Angeles Times]
Congress
to California: Here’s bit of egg on your face. A bipartisan group of lawmakers
failed to kill a provision in the farm bill that blocks California from
requiring that eggs imported into the state come from hens who have enough room
to spread their wings. The measure in the farm bill now before the House
would prohibit one state from imposing conditions on another state’s production
of agricultural goods. The prohibition was sought by Rep. Steve King, a
Republican from Iowa, the biggest egg-producing state, who contends that
California has exceeded its authority and interfered with Congress’ power to
regulate interstate commerce. A group of lawmakers, led by Rep. Jeff Denham, a
Republican from California’s agriculture-producing Central Valley, sought a
vote by the full House to remove the prohibition and substitute national
standards for hen housing. But the Republican-led House Rules Committee late
Tuesday rejected his request on a largely party-line 7-3 vote.
Editorial: If House enacts an
inhumane farm bill, Obama should veto it [Sacramento Bee]
…The
farm bill should provide a food safety net, particularly during economic
downturns, so Americans don't go hungry. The Great Recession, not surprisingly,
increased the number of families that qualify for food stamps. Food stamp
participation and costs will go down as the economy recovers. Senate cuts
reflect this; House cuts go too far. House and Senate bills agree on other
issues. Both would eliminate direct payments to farmers – traditional farm
subsidies – in favor of an expanded crop insurance farm safety net, to minimize
the volatility of weather, pests and world prices. The House, however, would boost
the subsidized crop insurance program significantly more than the Senate.…The
House would do better to scale back on its assault on food stamps by reducing
crop insurance subsidies. Then the haggling can begin with the Senate to
reconcile the bills and get a new five-year farm bill done so our producers can
have some certainty and stability. The delays on a farm bill have dragged on
for far too long.
As
fires rage, feds cut funding on prevention [Associated Press]
As
the West battles one catastrophic wildfire after another, the federal
government is spending less and less on its main program for preventing blazes
in the first place. A combination of government austerity and the ballooning
cost of battling the ruinous fires has taken a bite out of federal efforts to
remove the dead trees and flammable underbrush that clog Western forests. The
U.S. Forest Service says that next year it expects to treat nearly 1 million
fewer acres than it did last year. In real, inflation-adjusted dollars, the
government is spending less on the Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program, run
jointly by the Forest Service and the Interior Department, than it did in 2002.
And President Barack Obama has proposed a 31 percent cut for the fiscal year
that begins in the fall.
In
orange trade, success never tasted so sweet [Wall Street Journal]
In
a small shed nestled in a grove here, Kevin Severns dipped a long, thin
instrument into a test tube filled with fresh-squeezed orange juice. The
general manager of a citrus-growing cooperative smiled after getting a reading
of the juice's sugar content: "It's off the chart," said the
52-year-old Mr. Severns. California farmers such Mr. Severns have made a new
discovery: Consumers prefer sweeter oranges. The notion, obvious to some fruit
connoisseurs, is driving radical changes in the nearly $1.5 billion U.S. market
for fresh oranges, as farmers try to reverse years of falling sales and
persuade consumers not to switch to other citrus fruit.
*Link may
require paid subscription; text included in attached Word file.
World
Food Prize goes to 3 biotech scientists [Associated Press]
The
World Food Prize Foundation on Wednesday took the bold step of awarding this
year's prize to three pioneers of plant biotechnology whose work brought the
world genetically modified crops. The private nonprofit foundation, which is in
part funded by biotechnology companies, refused to shy away from the
controversy surrounding genetically modified crops that organic food advocates
say are harmful to people and the environment. "If we were to be deterred
by a controversy, that would diminish our prize," said the foundation's
president, Kenneth Quinn, a retired U.S. diplomat.
Ag
Today is distributed to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for
information purposes, by the CFBF Communications/News Division, 916-561-5550; news@cfbf.com.
Some story links may require site registration. To be removed
from this mailing list, reply to this message and please provide your
name and e-mail address.
No comments:
Post a Comment