Daybreak March 5: House GOP farm bill moves forward; Sell moves to runoff in Texas

Republicans moved their farm bill out of the House Agriculture Committee early today after a marathon, highly partisan debate.

The measure is now headed to the House floor although it could well face the same fate as the 2024 legislation, which never got a House vote. But the debate allowed both Republicans and Democrats to position for the mid-term elections.

For Republicans, the bill includes higher USDA loan limits and provisions to preempt California’s Proposition and to protect glyphosate and other pesticides. Democrats forced Republicans to vote on a range of issues, including year-round E15.

Key moment: Democrats took advantage of the GOP gridlock on E15 by offering an E15 amendment to the farm bill. Biofuel policy isn’t in the jurisdiction of the Ag Committee. So, to no one’s surprise, Republicans stuck together and upheld a point of order against the amendment. Still, Democrats still got to highlight a critical issue for Midwest farmers.  

Bill aims to break up packers

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is expected to announce a bill aimed at breaking up major meatpackers. The legislation would require processors to stick to one type of meat and impose hard caps on beef market concentration at regional and national levels, according to a section-by-section summary obtained by Agri-Pulse.

According to the summary, the bill would make it unlawful for “major meatpacking conglomerate to control more than one major type of meat.” 

On beef specifically, the bill would “impose hard caps on the concentration of beef markets at both the regional and national levels, relying on standard competition metrics to trigger mandatory deconcentration,” the fact sheet says.

The bill also would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to force foreign-controlled enterprises to divest themselves of U.S. meatpacking and processing assets. It would order a "comprehensive study” of the financing, ownership structures, and competitive effects of foreign-controlled meat and food processing enterprises. 

Why it matters: The bill isn’t going anywhere, but it gives Democrats a way to respond to concerns about the cost of living.

Trade court clears first hurdle for tariff refunds

A Court of International Trade judge has weighed in on tariff refunds, finding that importers should benefit from the Supreme Court ruling and get emergency tariffs returned. The order applies to almost all importers, even if they haven’t filed their own cases.

Any importer that is still waiting for their tariff calculations to be finalized would benefit – which can take more than 10 months. So would some importers that have recently had their rates finalized, after the judge asked Customs and Border Protection to redo the final calculations without the scrapped tariffs.

Interested in more news on farm programs, trade and rural issues? Sign up for a four-week free trial to Agri-Pulse. You’ll receive our content - absolutely free - during the trial period. 
 
But that doesn’t necessarily mean refunds are on their way. A trade lawyer granted anonymity to discuss the case tells Agri-Pulse the Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling. It can also ask the Federal Circuit for a stay while the appeal plays out. 

Bessent: Tariff increases imminent

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the administration will likely raise its global tariff this week, as President Donald Trump teased last month.  

Trump imposed a 10% global tariff in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling on his emergency tariffs last month to recover some of the lost duties. He said in a social media post last month that it would rise to 15%.

“That’s likely sometime this week,” Bessent said in an interview with CNBC on Wednesday. Further, he added that he has a “strong belief” that tariff rates will return to their previous level from before the ruling “within five months.”

Take note: That would not be welcome news for many U.S. ag groups, which have urged the administration to rethink its tariffs on farm inputs. If applied uniformly, the hike would also put some countries’ tariff rates above those they faced before the ruling.

But, but, but: Some analysts are skeptical that the new global tariff is legal. The statute underpinning the duties, known as Section 122, is supposed to address balance-of-payment crises. The National Taxpayers Union’s Bryan Riley argues these crises cannot technically occur under the U.S.’ floating exchange rate system. Trade deficits, he argues, are “conceptually distinct” from balance-of-payments issues.

Sell advances, Miller out in Texas

Sid Miller’s tenure as Texas agriculture commissioner is coming to an end. He lost by nearly 6 points in Tuesday’s primary despite getting the late endorsement of President Donald Trump. The primary winner, Nate Sheets, had the backing of Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Farm Bureau. Sheets, like Miller, backs the Make America Healthy Again movement.

By the way: Miller criticized attempts to overturn Proposition 12, the California law that regulates animal housing. He argued against federal preemption of such state regulations. In a key House race, prominent ag lobbyist Tom Sell easily qualified for a runoff in the GOP primary for the heavily Republican 19th District seat being vacated by Jodey Arrington.

Sell won more than 40% of the vote, doubling up his nearest competitor, Abraham Enriquez, who was endorsed by Turning Point USA.

USDA OKs four new states for SNAP restrictions

USDA is allowing four more states to impose restrictions on SNAP benefits. Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming and Ohio all received waivers from the program to restrict certain purchases, such as candy and soda, from the program. Twenty-two states have now received such waivers.

The waivers were signed Wednesday by Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins at the Agriculture Department, where she also said publication of a final rule on SNAP stocking requirements is “imminent.”

USDA sent the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review last week.

US backs Bayer/Monsanto in Supreme Court

The U.S. has weighed in at the Supreme Court on a pending case that could end up providing Bayer and other pesticide manufacturers with relief from plaintiff lawsuits.

In his office’s brief, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should provide uniformity in pesticide labeling.

“FIFRA rejects  … state-by-state cacophony and vests EPA with responsibility to determine what pesticide warnings are necessary to protect human health and the environment,” the government’s amicus brief says.

The case accepted for review by the Supreme Court concerns a Missouri man who won a $1.25 million jury award in state court after alleging the Roundup label failed to warn of cancer risks. Monsanto secured Supreme Court review after federal appeals courts split on whether state failure-to-warn claims should be preempted by FIFRA.

Final word

“There's been no topic that I've talked about more in my international travels than biofuels. … We are working every day with the U.S. Grains & BioProducts Council and other industry players to ensure that biofuels are at the table." — USDA Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Luke Lindberg during a House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee meeting Wednesday.

Kim Chipman, Oliver Ward and Noah Wicks contributed to today’s Daybreak.