(DES MOINES) - Gov. Terry E. Branstad today extended the disaster declaration allowing for more propane transport during harvest. The extension is 7 days, through Nov. 14.

Today's proclamation language is below:

WHEREAS,   a proclamation of disaster emergency was issued on October 24, 2013, as a result of the propane shortage being felt throughout the State of Iowa; and

WHEREAS,   effects of the shortage continue and the circumstances and reasons for issuance of the proclamation remain and continue; and

WHEREAS, strict compliance with Iowa Code section 321.449 pertaining to hours of service for drivers of commercial motor vehicles subject to the conditions stated in the October 24, 2013 proclamation will continue to prevent, hinder, or delay timely transportation and delivery of propane throughout the State of Iowa.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, TERRY E. BRANSTAD, Governor of the State of Iowa, by the power and authority vested in me by the Iowa Constitution Art. IV, §§ 1, 8 and Iowa Code § 29C.6(1), and all other applicable laws, do hereby extend a State of Disaster Emergency for the entire state of Iowa originally proclaimed on October 24, 2013 for an additional seven days.  All terms and conditions of the proclamation of October 24, 2013 are hereby included by reference and shall apply as if fully set forth in this proclamation.

This extension of the original proclamation shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on November 8, 2013, shall continue for seven (7) days, and shall expire on November 14, 2013 at 11:59 p.m., unless sooner terminated or extended in writing by me.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley and Congressman Jeff Fortenberry today made the following statements before the first official meeting of the farm and food bill conference committee later today.  Grassley and Fortenberry authored provisions in the Senate and House bills to establish a farm payment cap of $250,000.  The Senate and House bills also tighten loopholes that have allowed some non-farmers to game the system.  In addition, the Government Accountability Office recently released a report outlining many of the current shortcomings of the eligibility rules for farm programs.  The report also says that the legislative language in the Senate and House passed farm bills would be an appropriate fix to the agency's findings.

Grassley and Fortenberry maintain that the farm payment provisions are nearly identical in the two bills, and should not be up for negotiation.

Grassley comment:

"Our reform is common-sense.  Not only does it end some of the most egregious abuses of the farm program and make sure that the farm program payments are going to those who need them most, but it saves money.  It's a win-win for everybody.   When 22 people are getting farm payments for the same farm, and 70 percent of the farm payments go to 10 percent of the biggest farms, we've got a problem.  Some members of the conference committee have already made clear of their intention to remove the reforms.  By removing the payment limits and the provisions to close loopholes, these members are only making the safety net more susceptible to criticism and vulnerable to elimination.  The safety net is important to a safe and affordable food supply for the country, and it would be short-sighted to allow such a parochial mindset to undermine an important and necessary policy."

Fortenberry comment:

"After many years of discussion, farm payment limitations reform finally has a chance to become law.  More robust payment limits help farm supports reach intended recipients and close loopholes. In this time of tight budgets, the need for this type of fair reform is even greater. With the opportunity for new farm policy under negotiation between the House and Senate, payment limits should remain a key piece of the overall package. It is my hope that this important provision will carry forward into the final Farm Bill."

Specifics of the payment limits provisions:

• The bills establish a per farm cap of $50,000 on all commodity program benefits, except those associated with the marketing loan program (loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains), which would be capped at $75,000.  Thus the combined limit would be $125,000, or, for married couples, $250,000.  The $50,000 cap would apply to whatever type of program is developed as part of the new farm and food bill.

• The bills would define clearly the scope of people who are able to qualify as actively engaged by only providing management for the farming operation.  The bill will allow one off-farm manager, but only one.  Landowners who share rent land to an actively-engaged producer remain exempt from the "actively engaged" rules provided their payments are commensurate to their risk in the crop produced.

ST. LOUIS (October 29, 2013) - The U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) recently launched an official sustainability certification for U.S. soy. It provides exporters with verification that the soy products they sell on the world market are raised in a sustainable manner.  

The certification is verified by the U.S. Soybean Sustainability Assurance Protocol (SSAP). This protocol was developed by the United Soybean Board (USB), USSEC and the American Soybean Association (ASA) through a multi-stakeholder process to ensure the methodologies for measuring sustainable performance are thorough, transparent and credible. Creation of the SSAP and its official sustainability certification for exported soy products is a strategic move by these farmer-led national soybean organizations to assure international customers that U.S. farmers raise soybeans with high sustainability performance.  

"It is essential that we show the rest of the world what we are doing with regard to best management practices on the farm and best social practices in the community," says Laura Foell, Schaller, Iowa, farmer and USB farmer-leader. "Farmers are doing the right thing and striving for continuous improvement. We need to make sure our customers know that."

The sustainability certification is based on farmer participation in U.S. farm programs. Currently 95 percent of U.S. farms participate, according to USSEC. Thus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates of total soybean supply are multiplied by 0.95 to determine U.S. sustainable soy supply. The SSAP provides proof of reductions in carbon emissions, energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and soil erosion per acre of soybeans grown and per bushel of soybeans produced in the United States.

Certification is done at shipment point by Soy Export Sustainability, LLC, www.usses.org, based on an aggregate system representing nationwide soybean production.

This fall, the farmer-led organizations that constitute the U.S. soy family - USSEC, USB and ASA - are introducing their sustainability assurance protocol and sustainability certification system through a series of meetings around the world. Meetings with soy customers are being held in the Netherlands, Germany, Turkey and also U.S. soy farmers' largest market - China.  

The 69 farmers who serve on the USB board of directors 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 www.unitedsoybean.org
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/UnitedSoybeanBoard
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/unitedsoy
View our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/user/UnitedSoybeanBoard

###

Q:  What is the status of the farm and food bill?

A:  The clock is ticking for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to renew the federal farm and food bill that would set public policy for agriculture, nutrition, conservation, disaster assistance and rural development for the next five years.  In fact, nearly 80 percent of the funding is geared towards nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps), the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, and other food-assistance programs for seniors and children.  Only about 20 percent of the funding for the farm and food bill is directed towards agriculture programs.  Farm and food policy have been linked for decades in order to secure political support for both.  That pairing is likely to continue, at this point, but I don't like farmers getting the blame for the spending in the bill when agriculture programs receive a minor percentage of the funding. The most recent law expired September 30, and until Congress reaches an agreement, a quirk in the law automatically reverts federal farm policy to permanent Depression-era laws adopted in 1938 and 1949.  Lawmakers now must iron out the differences between their respective versions before Congress sends a final bill to the White House for the President's signature.    It's time to get the job done.  Congress needs to pass a farm and food bill that will give farmers the certainty they need to plan for the next planting season and maintain sound stewardship of financial and natural resources upon which their livelihood and way of life depends.

Q:        What needs to happen?

A:        U.S. farm and food policy needs to maintain a sufficient 21^st century farm safety net that supports rural America and America's food producers who grow the safest, most affordable and most abundant food supply in the world.  We can't afford to let federal farm and food policy unravel into uncertainty.  The next farm and food bill also needs to protect taxpayers.  America can't tax, spend and borrow its way to prosperity.  Reckless federal spending is piling up to unsustainable levels of national debt.  The public purse needs to protect the public good, from national security to food security.  Lawmakers need to make sure taxpayers get the most bang from every buck, including spending for American agriculture and nutrition.  I'm leading the effort for reforms that end automatic federal farm payments and tighten loopholes that are harming the integrity of federal farm programs.  Consider nationally that 10 percent of payment recipients receive 72 percent of farm program payments.  The farm safety net needs to empower farmers and producers to better manage their risk and protect soil and water quality.

Q:        Which payment reforms do you consider untouchable in negotiations on the farm and food bill?

A:        As one of two working family farmers serving in the U.S. Senate, I work to give a strong voice to American agriculture.  I'm also committed to getting Washington to do a better job of tightening its belt.  This year I secured two reforms that are included in both the Senate and House versions of the farm and food bill, including a fixed maximum annual payment limitation of $250,000 per married couple and an explicit directive that gives teeth to the definition of "actively engaged in farming."  Unfortunately, federal farm payments have flowed to non-farmers gaming the system. These types of shenanigans are indefensible and have no place in the farm and food safety net.  An investigation I requested by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office exposes flaws in the system, including a legal loophole that gives the program a black eye.  In its 60-page report, the GAO cited an example of a farm that received $400,000 in farm subsidies in 2012.  In a complex legal arrangement, the farm was organized as a general partnership, with six corporations and 11 members of the same family, ages 18-88.  The legislative reforms I championed in the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 are mirrored in the farm bill currently being negotiated in Congress.  It would change the definition to allow only one off-farm manager, which would help to crack down on general partnerships that are created to exploit the system to qualify for farm payments.  The farm safety net is intended to help those who grow our food to stay afloat when times are tough.  It's not intended to allow gougers to help themselves to feed at the taxpayers' trough.  By closing these loopholes and limiting lopsided farm payments, we can strengthen America's farm safety net.