By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, September 29, 2023

WASHINGTON – Several important amendments aimed at limiting USDA and FDA powers in the administration’s climate agenda, nutrition mandates, even an amendment on checkoff transparency, peppered the hotly debated FY2024 Ag Appropriations bill in an overnight marathon at the end of September as House of Representatives worked to avoid a government shut-down Oct. 1.

Some amendments passed and others failed.

Perhaps most notable was the Spartz Amendment (76) related to commodity checkoff transparency. It passed on a voice vote in the near midnight hour Sept. 26, but a recorded vote was requested by the opposition, and it was soundly defeated 326 to 72 in the late afternoon on Wednesday.

Here’s what we’ve learned from C-SPAN coverage and other sources about key agricultural amendments that are included and excluded.

The defeated Spartz Amendment would have prohibited use of taxpayer funds to carry out, administer or oversee the 22 commodity checkoff programs.

Other amendments that succeeded would prohibit USDA’s use of the appropriated funds to carry out the administration’s “climate agenda” via a long list of executive orders. Some amendments that passed prohibit USDA’s use of appropriated funds to enforce certain school meal rules, such as a proposed to ban chocolate milk in elementary schools and the current 14-year ban on whole milk at all grade levels.

A half-dozen amendments targeted specific USDA and FDA bureaucrat’s salaries by using the Holman Rule to cut down to $1 the salaries of, for example, the USDA Food Nutrition Services deputy under secretary for her role in expanding SNAP eligibilities beyond congressional intent and in expanding USDA diet-police tactics in schools by implementing the whole milk ban from a la carte offerings in 2012.

On the failure side, in addition to the Spartz amendment, another amendment offered by Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet Hageman would have undone the USDA mandate for electronic cattle identification. It would have left the funding in place for farmers and ranchers wanting to use the electronic ID (EID) system, but would have removed the mandate language.

Said Hageman: “Ireland required this. Today, a year later, there are untold numbers of reports they must fill out for the government, and Ireland now is considering killing off 1.3 million head of cattle to reach their ‘climate targets.’ Their EID mandate will help them carry out this slaughter.”

She said mandatory EID “will cost ranchers millions in compliance cost, causing smaller farms to sell out and accelerating vertical integration so the farmers and ranchers will be nothing but serfs. This is supported primarily by the four big packers — two of which are owned by Brazil and by China.

In opposition to the EID amendment, Chairman of the House Ag Committee, Glenn G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.), said technology and innovation are needed to protect livestock agriculture from disease outbreaks.

On the Spartz checkoff amendment, Thompson said the place to handle this is in the farm bill, not appropriations.

In defense of her approps amendment, Indiana Congresswoman Victoria Spartz said: “I am a farmer, and my cosponsor is a farmer, and we want to stand with the farmers.

“Farmers used to pay a checkoff voluntarily to promote the commodities. Then Congress made it mandatory, and there is no transparency,” she said. “If you are going to force farmers to pay the money, they should know where their money goes. Do they promote commodities? Or do they promote very wealthy jobs?”

She explained further that her amendment had two parts. One calls for checkoff transparency language in the farm bill. The other sought to be included in the Ag Appropriations, simply stating that no taxpayer funds can be used to carry out or oversee checkoff programs.

“It’s a simple amendment, but the special interests have gone on the attack saying: ‘How can Congress ask us what we’re doing with the money?’” said Spartz. “Now it has become imperative since they are now lobbying with this money against this amendment and against transparency.

“They say they aren’t using taxpayer money… So, just clarify this to Congress — that no taxpayer dollars are going to these boards that who knows where they spend the money,” she explained.

Cosponsoring the amendment, Rep. Tom Massie of Kentucky said: “This program has gone rotten and no longer serves farmers. In fact, we just sent a bipartisan letter to Secretary Vilsack reminding him that the USDA is required to report annually to Congress on the disbursement of these funds and show a third-party audit of their effectiveness.”

Massie noted that these reports to Congress have not been filed since 2018 for dairy, during which time dairy farmers paid over $1 billion, and more than 6000 have gone out of business.

Thompson stressed that the debate on checkoff transparency “should be reserved for the farm bill, not appropriations.” He said taxpayer funds are not being used in checkoff programs nor to oversee them.

Thompson expressed caution that some recent challenges to checkoff programs can be a veiled attack by animal rights groups that see this as an opportunity to weaken livestock agriculture. He said the farm bill is the place, “where conversations are already occurring, to improve these programs, to refine them, and to make them more transparent. I see the farm bill process as the appropriate path forward for achieving this transparency.”

“They should already want to be transparent to show this great thing they do for farmers,” Spartz countered. “But they are serving large monopolies, contributing to more consolidation so the little guy cannot survive.”

Spartz noted that Congress should “not be afraid to challenge these programs… to be the lobby for the people.”

For the three days leading up to the vote on the Spartz amendment, many agricultural groups with close ties and joint programs with commodity checkoff organizations amassed a barrage of lobbying efforts in opposition.

National Milk Producers Federation and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association spearheaded these efforts, including a letter signed by 130 organizations, saying that the Spartz amendment “unfairly targeted ‘producer-led’ checkoff programs that only use funds collected from proceeds of sale of these commodities – not taxpayer funds.

Here’s how I see it… If that premise is true, then what are the lobbyists opposing it so afraid of? No foul, no harm, right?

Perhaps they are afraid of the auditing that may be required to prove to Congress that no taxpayer funds are used to carry out checkoff programs. In fact, at the 11th hour, the Ag Environmental Coalition signed on to the letter opposing the Spartz amendment that was sent broadly to congressional offices urging a ‘no’ vote.

Could it be that taxpayer funds in the USDA coffers are being coughed up to further so-called ‘net-zero’ pathways initiated by the national dairy checkoff via DMI and its various tentacles?

It was USDA Secretary Vilsack, himself, who was first to announce Dairy Net Zero while testifying to the U.S. Senate in 2019 — asking them to fund Net Zero pilot programs. At that time, he was employed by checkoff, pulling down a million dollar salary via checkoff.

Now, Net Zero is the centerpiece of DMI’s “U.S. Dairy transformation” and the USDA ‘climate agenda’.

In fact, during a debate on an amendment offered by Florida Congresswoman, Kat Cammack, she cited a recent report citing Vilsack’s coordination with Arabella Advisors, a Soros-funded group, on “transforming the U.S. food system.”

She said the U.S. “can’t produce and process food for this country and abroad if we can’t rely on fuel and food systems not to be hijacked by the extremest climate agenda” and noted “many of these radical things do more harm than good to our environment. Our farmers and ranchers are the best in the world, and this amendment prevents the Biden administration from pushing its climate initiatives. It safeguards farmers and ranchers from these misguided policies.”

Could there be some blurred lines between taxpayer and checkoff funds piled into the climate-smart wheel-of-fortune?

Is there some leakage of taxpayer funds into certain checkoff industry structures and pre-competitive proprietary partnerships that create winners and losers among farms, among processors, among regions?

Certainly, Secretary Vilsack’s salary has been drawn from two pockets over the past 15 years (taxpayer, then checkoff, then taxpayer). This raises eyebrows as do the shared pathways to the same destination (net-zero) being paved with funds from both pockets. Each may fund a different track, but moving in unison to the same destination: putting the cow in the loser column so that Big Food and Big Tech can collect Big Money with the tools to move her over to the winner column (temporarily, folks, because cows don’t stop belching).

The way I see it, DMI and its many tentacles have charted a path for dairy that deems the cow a loser while developing the pathway to be her savior — to turn her into a winner and then tell her story. They promote the RNG projects, feed additives and sustainability practices that reduce her natural methane emissions, but forget to promote the fact that

With or without these pathways to Net Zero, the cow is already a winner! Cows are not the problem! A cow’s global warming potential (GWP) is not new, it is a constantly recycled baseline in a natural biochemical cycle that is as old as life itself. Math matters here!

Meanwhile, some of the checkoff-promoted tools deemed to make her loser-methane a “winner” will actually consolidate the dairy industry even more rapidly.

Large new production sites hinge on huge Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) projects that hinge on lucrative renewable fuel credits. Each permit recorded over the past two years and forward for the next five equals 2500 to 10,000 cows in expansions and new dairy sites.

These operations are less dependent on the level of the milk price to cash-flow, and they are bound by contracts to milk large numbers of cows to produce quantities of methane to then offset via RNG production to then generate credits for the exchanges.

At the federal milk pricing hearing in Indiana, we have heard processors lament that the FMMO minimum prices are too high. They’ve said the proof is the negative premiums and dumped milk this summer.

Are they really looking at getting the milk price minimums low enough that they can pay for those large new and expanded farm methane credits for their own scope 3 portfolios? Some processor testimony has mentioned sustainability costs in the make allowance part of the FMMO hearing. Do they want to weaken FMMO uniform pricing so they can cut farms that don’t measure up and use creative methane math to buy credits from others via milk premiums built on lower FMMO minimum prices?

We even have a global processor in New York State already doing a ‘pilot’ right now to monitor methane by analyzing their shippers’ Dairy One milk test data to benchmark farm methane emissions and make “recommendations.”

There’s a lot of money to be made by keeping cows in the loser column, and then building the consolidated pathways to move her into the Net Zero winner column.

Unfortunately, the math doesn’t add up, and the real losers will be our beloved cows – foster mothers of the human race — and our children and grandchildren who are already deprived of the very best our cows have to offer during 2 meals a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year at school.

Farmshine editor and publisher Dieter Krieg hit the nail on the head in his editorial in the September 22 edition. The anti-animal agenda is real, and that fox is has been inside our henhouse with an agenda that began in 1995 when DMI was created to manage both halves of the checkoff structure, and it has become more obvious since 2008, when the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy was created. This is also the year the whole milk ban train started rolling and DMI began conspiring with USDA to “advance the dietary guidelines” via a memorandum of understanding that initiated GENYOUth.

We’ve reported extensively on the murky methane math, the ten-fold typographical errors, the worsening dietary guidelines that ignore science, and the progressively more restrictive fat rules for school meals that are now morphing to anti-cow climate considerations.

More recently, we’ve reported on how the bubble-up in milk production in the Central U.S. that led to dumping of milk and unforeseen disastrous prices this summer was largely fueled by new RNG projects like are promoted by checkoff to help our very-bad, no-good cows become good for the planet.

The misappropriation of math and science has been staggering. Government is the problem, not the solution. Cows are the solution, not the problem. Newsflash: cows are already good for the planet, and they provide us with optimum natural nutrition we enjoy.