Ahead of an impending government shutdown, dozens of industry groups pushed back against a proposed amendment that would have had implications for commodity checkoff program funding.
Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN-05) brought forth House Amendment 330, which would have amended the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to prohibit the use of funds for commodity checkoff programs. The amendment failed on a Sept. 27 vote on a count of 49-377.
Spartz said the amendment clarified the intent of Congress that no taxpayer dollars are going to be given to commodity boards without knowing where the money is being spent.
“Unfortunately, a lot of special interest groups that aren’t supposed to even lobby with this money decided to go and attack—‘How could Congress ask for accountability, how could Congress ask us what we’re doing with the money?’” Spartz said during a late-night debate about the amendment.
“And I believe now it’s become imperative since they’re lobbying with this money against this amendment against transparency … that taxpayers’ dollars are not given to these boards until we figure out what’s going on with the money,” she continued.
Industry pushback
A total of 130 agriculture and forestry groups penned a letter on Sept. 26 to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-20) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-08), voicing their opposition to the amendment.
“Checkoffs were established at the urging of the producers of their respective product,” the groups wrote. “While each individual program operates in a manner uniquely crafted to suit the needs of that specific commodity, generally, a small portion of the sales receipts of that commodity is allocated to a research and promotion board overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”
The groups continued that Congress has supported the checkoff programs multiple times by adopting legislation authorizing checkoffs requested by other producer groups.
“These programs are entirely funded and directed by those who pay assessments into them—in other words, producers themselves. There are no taxpayer dollars used to implement checkoffs, and no appropriated dollars are used to oversee.”
The letter also noted that checkoffs are regularly audited, and that the amendment would do nothing to increase transparency at USDA.
The groups said that research and promotion boards exist to develop new markets and strengthen existing channels for commodities, in addition to conducting important research and promotional activities.
“As a cattle producer, I am proud to pay into the Beef Checkoff because I know my $1 is doing more for our entire industry than I could do on my own,” said NCBA President Todd Wilkinson in a news release. “I urge Congress to stand with real farmers and ranchers over activists and reject Rep. Spartz’s attack on checkoff programs. Our future depends on the investments we make now, and the Beef Checkoff is the strongest tool we have to keep beef on consumers’ plates, strengthening the cattle industry today and for the next generation.”
The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) also noted their opposition to the amendment. “Our industry has overwhelmingly approved our American lamb checkoff twice in national referendums, both on producer and production counts,” said ASI President Brad Boner. “It is poor policy to change the rules after we built a program that fits our producers, feeders and processors.” — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
