34 senators urge President to addreess ag export issue with Russia PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Agribusiness
Written by Grassley Press   
Wednesday, 20 June 2012 13:11

WASHINGTON – June 20, 2012 - Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ben Nelson of Nebraska today released a letter asking President Obama to prioritize Russia’s compliance with scientific standards set for international trade of for beef, pork and poultry products as part of negotiations with Russia over international trade relations.

“As we look to possibly grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia as part of the WTO accession process, livestock producers in the United States needs the President to give attention to sanitary and phytosanitary issues,” Grassley said.  “As it stands, Russians have standards that simply aren’t supported by science for some U.S. meat and poultry exports.”

“Nebraska livestock producers have seen a drop in sales from Russia imposing standards not based entirely on sound science,” Nelson said. “Russia’s restrictions on American livestock violate the WTO rules, and we must have assurances Russia will abide by all of its rules and standards before Russia joins the WTO.”

On Thursday, the Finance Committee will hold a hearing on Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Russia.  Grassley, a former chairman of the committee, said he will ask questions of administration officials about Russia’s treatment of U.S. agricultural goods.

The text of the Grassley-Nelson letter is below.  The following 32 senators joined them in signing the letter:  Mark Kirk of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, John Thune of South Dakota, Al Franken of Minnesota, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Michael Bennett of Colorado, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Kay Hagan of North Dakota, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Mark Udall of Colorado, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dan Coats of Indiana, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Boozman of Arkansas, and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.


Click here to see a signed copy of the letter.


June 19, 2012

President Barack H. Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C.  20500


Dear President Obama:

As Congress is faced with a decision of whether or not we grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to Russia, there are a number of issues left to be resolved.  However, we want to raise a particular issue with you that is important to U.S. farmers and ranchers.  Among the outstanding issues yet to be addressed adequately is Russia’s failure to bring its practices into compliance with unambiguous WTO sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards with respect to imports of meat and poultry products from the United States.

We know you understand the importance of beef, pork, and poultry to the U.S. and Russia trade relationship.  Last year, U.S. meat and poultry exports collectively ranked second only to aircraft engines in total U.S. export value to Russia.  We appreciate our trade officials’ efforts in obtaining strong tariff and quota access provisions from Russia in the accession talks.

However, U.S. meat and poultry exports have been steadily falling in recent years due to Russia’s non-science based sanitary measures.  Russia’s restrictions are numerous and range from the unjustifiable de-listing of U.S. meat processing facilities to arbitrary SPS actions that lack scientific justification to limit or even halt poultry and meat imports.  Judging by Russia’s past and current practices on SPS issues, we lack confidence that Russia will all of a sudden treat U.S. pork and poultry products equitably upon entry into the WTO.  Furthermore, while U.S. beef does not currently face the challenges U.S. pork and poultry are dealing with, given Russia’s track record on U.S. pork and poultry, we have little reason to believe U.S. beef won’t eventually face its own issues with non-science based SPS measures instituted by Russian officials.

Officials in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Agriculture are well acquainted with the Russian measures we are referring to, and they appreciate the fact Russia’s approach is not supported by science.  Our trade officials must keep up the pressure on Russia to lower these non-science based SPS barriers, and urge Russia to take these steps prior to formal entry into the WTO.  If we are not able to adequately address the SPS issues, it will undermine the commitments we obtained on tariffs and quotas.

We ask that you direct our trade officials to continue every effort to obtain firm, science-based commitments from Russia on the outstanding SPS issues prior to their formal entry into the WTO.  The commitments we are asking for from Russia are reasonable and achievable and are within the scope of the type of commitments made to the United States by both China and Vietnam in the context of their accessions to the WTO.  In addition, we urge you to address these issues with President Putin at your earliest opportunity.

We hope you will agree every effort should be made to lower these unjustifiable barriers hurting U.S. farmers, and that it should happen prior to Russia’s formal entry into the WTO.  We stand behind our farmers and products they produce, and they deserve to be treated equitably by our trading partners.  While this is only one of many issues that needs to be addressed by Russia, it is a key issue. If it were resolved in a satisfactory manner it would certainly be a crucial step forward in our trade relationship with Russia.


Chuck Grassley

Ben Nelson

Mark Kirk

Tom Harkin

Jeff Sessions

Claire McCaskill

Richard Burr

Amy Klobuchar

John Thune

Al Franken

Jon Kyl

Sherrod Brown

Pat Roberts

Michael Bennett

Mike Johanns

Herb Kohl

Tom Coburn

Joe Manchin

Richard Lugar

Debbie Stabenow

Mike Enzi

Kay Hagan

Roy Blunt

Mark Udall

Jerry Moran

Tim Johnson

Saxby Chambliss

Mark Pryor

John Hoeven

Richard Durbin

Dan Coats

Orrin Hatch

John Boozman

Jim Inhofe


Senate approves Grassley amendment to farm bill PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Agribusiness
Written by Richard Martin   
Wednesday, 20 June 2012 08:26
WASHINGTON - During debate this afternoon on the 2012 farm bill, senators voted 75 to 24 for Senator Chuck Grassley's amendment to cap marketing loan gains (amendment #2167).

"We should have caps on Title I commodity programs, and this amendment sets hard cap of $75,000 on marketing loan gains," Grassley said.  "The reform will help to bring about more defensibility for the farm program, along with the other reforms I worked to get in the legislation during committee consideration."

Grassley is a longtime advocate of limits on farm program payments to keep the program focused on small and mid-sized farmers.

Soy Checkoff-Funded Video Series Helps Boost Production, Profit Potential PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Agribusiness
Written by United Soybean Board   
Tuesday, 19 June 2012 13:03
Focus on Soybeans” webcasts provide farmers the latest news on production research

ST. LOUIS (June 19, 2012) – To make the most of every acre, U.S. soybean farmers need the latest production research and management information. One thing that can help them get it is the soy checkoff-funded “Focus on Soybeans” webcast series. And with the new, quicker summary versions, U.S. soybean farmers can get the latest information they can use on the farm in five minutes or less.

“The webcasts provide valuable information to help soybean farmers better manage pests, diseases and other crop stresses,” says Jimmy Sneed United Soybean Board (USB) communications chair and Hernando, Miss., soybean farmer. “They also bring to U.S. soybean farmers new developments in production practices, irrigation management, seeding rates, seed-quality preservation and others that are included in the series, too.”

Now the webcasts are available in a shorter format. And although that provides more convenience for some farmers, the full-length versions, which include a lot more science-related information, still remain available for soybean farmers who prefer the longer format.

The webcast series, developed by Plant Management Network (PMN) in partnership with the soy checkoff, feature updates on applied and practical soybean research projects. On the last Monday of each month, the soy checkoff posts new webcasts to, accessible via the “Focus on Soybeans” sign on the homepage. All U.S. soybean farmers have free access to the full-length webcasts for two months. The five-minute summary versions will be accessible at all times.

“We are pleased to work with the USB and the soy checkoff on this effort to help U.S. farmers, crop consultants and others to manage their soybean crops more profitably,” says Greg Tylka, Ph.D., professor and extension specialist at Iowa State University and chair of the Focus on Soybeans editorial committee. “Through this convenient, practical outlet, we provide research-based crop production and protection information to help U.S. farmers increase soybean yields in this growing season and beyond.” PMN serves as an Internet-based resource owned and operated by the American Phytopathological Society and jointly managed by the American Society of Agronomy and the Crop Science Society of America. The website can be accessed at

“With cuts in resources such as extension, it becomes increasingly important that farmers have other resources to turn to help us boost our production,” says Sneed. “That boost in production can help increase the profitability of every U.S. soybean farmer, which has always been a goal of the soy checkoff.”

The soy checkoff has funded “Focus on Soybeans” since 2010, providing access to 12 webcasts per year.

The 69 farmer-directors of USB oversee the investments of the soy checkoff to maximize profit opportunities for all U.S. soybean farmers. These volunteers invest and leverage checkoff funds to increase the value of U.S. soy meal and oil, to ensure U.S. soybean farmers and their customers have the freedom and infrastructure to operate, and to meet the needs of U.S. soy’s customers. As stipulated in the federal Soybean Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has oversight responsibilities for USB and the soy checkoff.

For more information on the United Soybean Board, visit
Visit us on Facebook:
Follow us on Twitter:
View our YouTube channel:


Farm, Rural and Environmental Groups call for Crop Insurance Subsidy Limits PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Agribusiness
Written by John Crabtree   
Monday, 18 June 2012 13:00

Lyons, Nebraska - This week, the Center for Rural Affairs joined four other farm, rural and environmental organizations in signing and sending a letter to every U.S. Senator urging them to place limits on the federal crop insurance premium subsidies granted to individual farmers, establish income limits for subsidy recipients and require that recipients be actively engaged in farming.

“We are a diverse group of organizations united by the belief that responsible farm policy should direct subsidies for crop insurance premiums to farmers who need it,” said Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs. “And Congress should cap those premium subsidies at levels that do not make it easier for the nation’s largest farms to drive out small, mid-sized and beginning farmers.”

To view or download a full copy of the letter go to:

According to Hassebrook, federal farm spending is dramatically shifting from farm payments to subsidies for crop insurance, with the federal government now paying an average of 60% of premiums. Crop insurance expenditures are more than double traditional farm programs under the proposed new farm bill, with no subsidy limit and no eligibility requirements.

“The result will be an increase in the already excessive subsidies to the nation’s largest farms,” Hassebrook explained.

"In a time when federal dollars are scarce we are sending precious government resources to large and highly profitable agribusinesses while cutting food assistance to needy children and environmental protections for soil, water, and wildlife," said Craig Cox, senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources at Environmental Working Group. "It is simply irresponsible to send unlimited subsidies to farm businesses that can easily afford to pay more of the cost for their crop insurance - 26 mega farms received over a million dollars apiece per year in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.”

The joint letter also explains that capping individual premium subsidies and setting income limits will not deny farmers access to needed risk protection.  And it is important to note that such a policy would not deny or cap insurance payments (indemnities) to farms facing losses.  Rather, it would limit subsidies on the front end for payment of premiums. These subsidies are highest in the best of times because it costs more to insure a crop at market value when its price is high.

“Federal crop insurance is a valuable tool for producers – one which we support.  Farmers need to be able to manage risks of failed crops and low prices to maintain their farms from year to year,” said Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs. “But the emergence of crop insurance as the primary element of farm policy requires that it be subject to payment limitations and eligibility requirements, just like traditional farm programs.”

ISU Scott County Extension & Outreach PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Agribusiness
Written by Amanda Heitz   
Friday, 15 June 2012 08:05

<< Start < Prev 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next > End >>

Page 100 of 162