National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MEETING
November 12-14, 2014 * Portland, Oregon
NCFC Government Affairs Committee
The Benson Hotel
309 Southwest Broadway
Portland, Oregon
November 12-14, 2014
AGENDA
November 12th
All Day
Arrival and Check-in
2:30 pm
Bus Departs for Agricultural Industry Tour
3:30 pm
NORPAC Facilities Tour
3225 25th St. SE
Salem, OR
5:00 pm
Bus Returns to The Benson Hotel
6:30 pm
Reception & Dinner
Brasserie Montmartre
626 SW Park Ave
Portland, OR
(503) 236-3036
November 13th
7:30 am
Breakfast
8:00 am
Welcome & Introductions
• Chairman's Welcome & Meeting Overview
• Self-Introductions of Committee Members
• Approval of the Minutes
8:15 am
2014 Election Analysis – Implications for Agriculture
Guest Speaker:
Ron Brownstein
9:15 am
NCFC CO-OP/PAC Report
• 2014 Cycle Review: How'd we do?
9:30 am
GMO Labeling—The Impact of the Oregon and Colorado Outcomes
• Implications for future labeling initiatives and the agriculture industry
Guest Speaker:
Ian Tolleson
Director, Government Affairs
Northwest Food Processing Association
Representing the Business Interests of Agriculture
10:15 pm
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food – Hitting the Reset Button
10:30 am
Break
10:45 am
Yakima Valley Groundwater Litigation – Lessons Learned
Guest Speaker:
Steve Rowe
Senior VP & General Counsel
Darigold, Inc.
11:30 am
Elections
• Chair and Vice Chair
• Subcommittee Chair and Vice Chair
12:00 pm
Working Lunch
12:30 pm
NCFC Sustainability Project
• Renewed Focus by NCFC Leadership
• Phase 1 – Understanding your Needs
• Next Steps
1:30 pm
Bus Departs for Agricultural Industry Tour
2:30 pm
Oregon Cherry Growers – Processing Plant Tour
1520 Woodrow St NE
Salem, OR
NOTE: Bus will not return to the hotel after the tour. We will go straight
from the tour to dinner.
5:30 pm
Reception & Dinner
Sokol Blosser Winery
5000 NE Sokol Blosser Lane
Dayton, OR
(503) 864-2282
November 14th
7:30 am
Breakfast
8:00 am
Challenges Facing Exports off the West Coast – Panel Discussion
Panelist:
Dermot Carey
Darigold
Julian Heron
Tuttle Taylor & Heron (on behalf of Blue Diamond)
David Cobb
CHS Inc.
9:00 am
Co-op Trends & Possible Future Legal/Policy Needs
Guest Speaker:
Bill Hutchison
Lane Powell PC
9:30 am
Outlook for Tax Reform
• Lame Duck Prospects for Tax Extenders
• Sec. 199 Coalition Formed
9:45 am
Roundtable Discussion: Advocacy in 2015
• What are your priority issues for 2015?
10:15 am
BREAK
10:45 am
Review & Finalize NCFC 2015 Priorities & Policy Recommendations
11:45 am
NCFC Communications & PR Campaign – Preparing for 2015
• Launching the New NCFC Website
• Highlighting Industry Advocacy Plans
• Building on Young Cooperator Program
12:05 pm
Other Business & Future Meetings
12:15 pm
Adjourn (Lunch to Follow)
1:30 pm
Bus Departs for Agricultural Industry Tour
2:30 pm
Domaine Serene Winery
6555 NE Hilltop Lane
Dayton, OR
4:00 pm
Stoller Vineyards
16161 NE McDougall Road
Dayton, OR
6:15 pm
Arrive Back at The Benson Hotel
7:00 pm
Optional Dinner
Pazzo Ristorante
627 SW Washington St
Portland, OR
(503) 228-1515
PLANT VISITOR TOUR GUIDELINES
All visitors must check in with the plant office and sign visitor’s log
before entering the production facility
1) Do not chew gum, or tobacco, eat, drink or bring glass containers
into production area
2) All visitors will contain hair within company approved white hair
nets and beard nets if appropriate.
3) Remove all jewelry such as earrings, necklaces, rings, bracelets and
watches. Medically necessary bracelets/necklaces are acceptable if
secured under clothing.
4) Personal bags such as purses or backpacks are not permitted in the
processing area.
5) Sleeveless garments, shorts and open-toed shoes are not permitted.
6) The use of cameras or cell phones for still photos or video is not
allowed.
Visitor’s Policy
All visitors to OCG facilities are required to register in the Visitor Log and adhere to the Good Manufacturing Practices
and Confidentiality agreement below. All visitors are to be escorted by an OCG employee at all times.
Good Manufacturing Practices



















Jewelry and loose objects shall not be worn above the waist. Exceptions are: solid wedding band (no stones) and
medical alert bracelet / tags that can be covered.
Visitors shall wear clothes and shoes that are in good repair and free of any contamination.
Open toed shoes and / or sandals are prohibited in the production facilities.
Pants must be of full length and cover the hip.
Shorts, skirts, and sleeveless shirts are prohibited.
Clothing with ornamentation is prohibited.
Bump caps are to be worn at all times within the production facility.
Hair nets and beard nets (if applicable) must be worn at all times covering all head and facial hair.
Visitors shall wash their hands when entering any designated GMP area, leaving the restroom, or when hands
become contaminated.
Cover all coughs. Wash hands when they become contaminated.
Prior to entering any OCG facility open wounds and cuts must be covered by a metal detectable bandage.
Visitors must report any contagious, infectious disease or illness before entering any OCG facility.
No tobacco products are allowed except within designated areas.
Non-water beverages and food are prohibited except within designated areas.
Glassware, including breakable plastic is prohibited except within designated areas.
Possession of or visiting the site under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited.
No pictures or videos are allowed to be taken on OCG premises.
It is required that visitors report all on site injuries to plant supervision immediately.
Visitors are required to have valid picture identification.
Confidentiality Agreement
Visitors recognize that our company has invested considerably into the research, development, testing, marketing,
manufacture, and production of certain equipment, products, processes, and other technical or non-technical information
which may be disclosed while at any OCG location. This may include but is not limited to trade secrets, confidential,
and / or proprietary information. Visitors agree that any information received at OCG must remain confidential.
Signature
The visitor’s signature in the Visitor Log is a written acceptance to the terms and conditions within this Visitor Policy.
CO-POL-0079 – Revision: .02 – CO #: 79-OCG – Date Approved: 25-Mar-14
JUNE 2014
MEETING MINUTES
NCFC Government Affairs Committee Meeting
Washington, DC
June 9, 2014
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chairman, Rich Hudgins, called the meeting to order, giving an overview of the
meeting while walking attendees through the government affairs book and meeting materials.
Attendees then provided self-introductions.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion to approve the February 2014 minutes was made by Jackie Klippenstein and seconded
by David Salmen.
MID-TERM ELECTIONS & BEYONG
The Committee was joined by Chris Cillizza, political analyst and writer for the Washington
Post. Cillizza gave his prognostications on the upcoming midterm elections, walking through
each of the contested Senate races. He then turned his attention to the growing list of possible
GOP presidential contenders versus the predicted run by Hillary Clinton.
STATUS UPDATE: ONGOING TRADE NEGOTIATIONS (TTP &TTIP)
The Committee was joined by Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
Agricultural Affairs and Commodity Policy, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Lauritsen
gave the Committee the latest information and progress report on key trade agreements,
including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) agreements.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Government Affairs Committee members broke into Subcommittees to discuss current
topics relative to farmer cooperatives. Below is a summary of the Subcommittee meetings:
•
International Affairs – Mike Wooten welcomed the group of attendees and the members
introduced themselves and their cooperative affiliation. The subcommittee hosted Stephen
Claeys of the Trade Counsel from the U.S. House of Representatives Ways & Means
Committee. Mr. Claeys discussed the Congressional Trade Agenda from the House
perspective and what to expect in the future. While the administration continues to negotiate
the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the
administration still lacks Trade Promotion Authority, which doesn’t appear will be granted
by Congress in the near future. Following Mr. Claeys, Chuck Conner, President & CEO of
NCFC, outlined recommendations the agriculture community intends to present to USDA
Secretary Vilsack regarding USDA reorganization. USDA is charged with reorganization
given the new position created by the farm bill for an Under Secretary for International
Affairs. One of the recommendations includes taking APHIS out of Marketing and
Regulatory Programs and putting it under the new Under Secretary position, along with the
Foreign Agriculture Service. USDA is to report to Congress in August on their plans, but
that deadline is not expected to be met. The meeting ended on discussions of other business,
including the status of the Country of Origin case on meat labeling in the WTO.
•
Food and Nutrition – The Subcommittee heard from a panel of industry leaders on GMO
labeling. The panel included Dana O’Brien of the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
Zach Kinne of the National Corn Growers Association, Chuck Spencer of GROWMARK,
Inc. and Tres Bailey of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Each panelist offered varying perspectives on
GMO labeling and its impact throughout the supply chain. The panelists highlighted the
benefits of GMOs and the need for further engagement and education of consumers. NCFC
staff, Kathleen Johnson, gave a status update on the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA)
recent rulemakings. Mrs. Johnson explained of the seven major proposed rules released to
implement the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), NCFC is currently crafting
comments on the Intentional Adulteration and Sanitary Transportation proposed rules which
are due later this summer. Mrs. Johnson informed the group there will be another opportunity
this fall to comment on the Produce Safety rule, the Preventative Controls rule and the Feed
rule. NCFC is looking forward to submitting additional comments on several contentious
aspects of those rules, including the water quality standards and standards for using raw
manure. In closing, Mrs. Johnson highlighted some of the major changes FDA is proposing
to the Nutrition Facts label on packaged foods and said that NCFC would use this
opportunity to urge FDA to establish a front of package label.
•
Fruit, Vegetable & Nut – Tom Hebert of the Bayard Ridge Group kicked off the
Subcommittee with an overview of the new conservation compliance requirements and a
brief history on the ”Swampbuster” provisions. Mr. Hebert then turned it over to Brandon
Willis, Administrator for the Risk Management Agency (RMA) at the USDA's Farm and
Foreign Agriculture Services. Mr. Willis further discussed conservation compliance and
RMA’s role in the new program’s implementation, as well as, the importance of filing the
AD-1026 form with USDA’s Farm Service Agency. Then Scott Carter, Chief of Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) Office of Governmental Affairs gave a summary of several FNS
child nutrition programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) and the
farm to school program. Mr. Carter explained states and schools will be selected for the
FFVP pilot based on access issues to fruits and vegetables, the number of schools available in
the State, and school characteristics, including size, location (rural or urban) and percentages
of free and reduced price students.
•
Animal Agriculture –The Subcommittee welcomed Mike Schmidt, Deputy Administrator
for Farm Programs for the Farm Service Agency. Mr. Schmidt discussed progress on the
implementation of the Farm Bill and how regulations were developing. Mr. Schmidt gave the
Subcommittee an overview on how the new loss programs would cover losses in the past few
years, as well as what kind of yields the dairy loss program would deliver. The
Subcommittee discussed the value of pasture intended for grazing and the value of ground
used for hay, and Mr. Schmidt advised the committee on the different values they held when
filing for drought losses. Next, the Subcommittee introduced Mark Dopp, Senior Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs for the American Meat Institute. Mr. Dopp presented the
status of the Country of Origin labeling (COOL) for meat, and the problems it is causing the
domestic livestock industry to comply. Internationally, in 2012 the U.S. COOL regulation
was found in violation of WTO rules. After revising the rule in 2013, Canada and Mexico
initiated a WTO compliance panel on the grounds that it still discriminates against meat
products from those countries and continues to be in violation of WTO rules. Because
Congress did not make changes in the farm bill to address COOL, it is expected the U.S. will
found in non-compliance when the panel rules in October. Retaliatory tariffs could be
imposed by Canada and Mexico on U.S. products in 2015 if the U.S. does not take further
measures to come into compliance.
•
Environment & Energy – David Salmen welcomed all attendees and had the room share
their name and affiliation. The Subcommittee hosted Tom Hebert, an NCFC consultant,
from the Bayard Ridge Group, to speak about the Clean Water Act rulemaking. Next, Lisa
Kelley of NCFC provided status updates of other environmental issues impacting
Agriculture. These included pesticide permit obtainment in regards to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, as well as pollinator health, pesticides mixing with the
Endangered Species Act, Worker Protection, and other ongoing litigation. Kelsey Swango
concluded the meeting with a briefing concerning Farm Bill implementation that included
conservation and energy titles. Time for questions and other business was allotted, however,
none were provided.
•
Labor & Infrastructure – The Subcommittee was joined by Rebecca Tallent, Assistant to
the Speaker of the House on immigration issues. Ms. Tallent updated the group on the
prospects of the House taking up immigration reform legislation before the August Recess.
Ms. Tallent reassured the group the Speaker is very committed to fixing the problem and
there was still hope for action sometime in July. If not, she warned listeners it would take
another 3-4 years for the issue to be back on the table. She also reminded the group that the
Speaker is only one vote and that it would be an uphill battle but that behind the scene
conversations where occurring at the member level. The Subcommittee then heard form
Clare Thorp of CropLife America on the worker protection standards rulemaking order to
reduce the incidence of occupational pesticide exposure & related illness among ag workers.
It is hoped that the EPA will meet for another round of discussion to revise the rule in a
meaningful way.
GENERAL SESSION II
The Committee returned for an afternoon business meeting to review several items.
OUTLOOK FOR TAX EXTENDERS & TAX REFORM
Melissa Mueller and Joe Mikrut with Capitol Tax Partners provided the Committee with an
update on tax reform discussions in the House and Senate. They also discussed end-of-year
scenarios for a tax extenders package and what future changes to expect from the tax writing
committees. Of note, was their discussion of the Section 199 deduction for domestic production
activities and their work alongside NCFC to education members of Congress on its benefits.
ANTITTURST LITIGATION: STATUS OF ONGOING CASES CHALLENGING THE
CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT
Marlis Carson of NCFC briefed the Committee on recent antitrust developments in several
ongoing cases challenging the Capper-Volstead Act. She referred the Committee to a more
detailed memo provided in the meeting material for background information on each of the
cases.
FARM BILL IMPLEMENTATION ROUNDTABLE
With the farm bill finally passed, NCFC has turned its attention to implementation. The
Committee took this time to talk through implementation issues and concerns, and offered
recommendations that NCFC could include in its communications with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. During the roundtable discussion, other topics were also raised, including issues
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as well as concerns that the annual
agricultural appropriations bill would be used as a tool to undermine the recently passed farm
bill. NCFC noted it was prepared to weigh in strongly should Congress take up the measure.
NCFC COMMUNICATIONS & PR CAMPAIGN
Justin Darisse of NCFC discussed NCFC’s utilization of the Industry Action Fund and the
Farmer Co-ops: Providing for America campaign to educate policy makers and others about the
uniqueness of farmer co-ops and the integral role they play in American agriculture. NCFC’s
efforts to highlight ways in which farmer co-ops remain relevant for two groups of growing
importance to the future of agriculture—young farmers and large-scale producers—form a key
part of the campaign this year. Darisse explained that NCFC will be using the findings from
research released at the February Annual Meeting in two ways. First, they will help guide the
organization as we set our programmatic and policy agendas, looking for ways to increase
NCFC’s leadership and relevance for these two groups. An example of this process is the
Political Advocacy & Leadership (PAL) program for young producers that NCFC is launching at
this Washington Conference. Second, NCFC will be using the information gathered from the
surveys to inform the messaging and content development of marketing and communications
pieces within the Providing for America campaign. These will include advertisements, feature
articles for NCFC member publications and opinion-editorials for the general news media.
Darisse noted that the other major initiative being undertaken as part of the campaign this year is
the redesign of the NCFC web site. This effort will not only modernize the look and feel of the
organization’s online presence but will also help to spotlight material on farmer co-ops
developed through other aspects of the Providing for America campaign. The redesign is already
underway with a targeted completion date of late summer.
NCFC CO-OP/PAC REPORT
Kelsey Swango announced fundraising for the PAC was off to a strong start with $67,000 in
contributions from January 1st through the end of April. There was tremendous participation at
the 3rd Annual Silent Auction held in conjunction with NCFC’s Annual Meeting, which helped
raise over $20,000 in the month of February, a record for this fundraising event. Ms. Swango
stated that the PAC has supported 13 members of Congress for reelection in the November
midterm elections.
Ms. Swango announced that the PAC would be holding a fundraiser three members of Congress
in conjunction with the Washington Conference—Senator Amy Klobuchar, member of the
Senate Agriculture Committee and co-chair of the Congressional Farmer Cooperative Caucus,
Representative Bill Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and Representative David Valadao, member of the House Appropriations
Committee.
FUTURE MEETINGS & OTHER BUSINESS
Committee members were directed to a list of future meetings including in their materials, noting
that the next meeting of the Committee would be in November at The Benson Hotel in Portland,
Oregon.
ADJOURN
Mr. Hudgins adjourned the meeting.
2014 ELECTION
ANALYSIS
Tel: 202-626-8700
Fax: 202-626-8722
50 F Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
www.ncfc.org
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NCFC Government Affairs Committee
NCFC Staff
November 6, 2014
Post-Op: 2014 Midterm Elections
As of this writing, there were a handful of key House and Senate races around the country that
had not been called. This memo and the information that follows is intended to capture the
results of the election to date, and its implications for leadership positions and key congressional
committees.
The images below, courtesy of National Journal, give some insight into the incoming freshman
class of the 114th Congress.
Interestingly, at least 13 women were added to the ranks, bringing the total to 100 for the first
time ever.
Senate
While the balance of power has firmly shifted in the Senate, with the GOP adding at least seven
to their ranks to give them the majority, two Senate races remained too close to call (Alaska and
Virginia), and one is headed for a December 6th run-off (Louisiana). Odds are that once the
dust settles on these races, Senate Republicans will have a 54 to 46 vote majority, winning a
total of nine seats. Then there’s speculation of potential party flips by Sen. Angus King of Maine
(Independent but currently caucuses with the Democrats) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). The
2014 midterm elections marked the sixth time partisan control of the Senate has flipped in the
past two decades.
Representing the Business Interests of Agriculture
NCFC Post-Op: 2014 Midterm Elections
November 6, 2014
Tuesday’s election results brought significant changes to the Senate, but the leadership within
both parties will largely stay as is. Of course, these positions are subject to the approval of their
respective conferences/caucuses.
Senate Majority Leadership
Senate Minority Leadership
Majority Leader: Mitch McConnell (KY)
Minority Leader: Harry Reid (NV)
Majority Whip: John Cornyn (TX)
Minority Whip: Richard Durbin (IL)
Conference Chair: John Thune (SD)
Conference Chair: Charles Schumer (NY)
Conference Vice Chair: Roy Blunt (MO)
Caucus Secretary: Patty Murray (WA)
Policy Committee Chair: John Barrasso
(WY)
Chief Deputy Whip: Barbara Boxer (CA)
Chief Deputy Whip: Mike Crapo (ID)
Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee: John Tester (MT)
National Republican Senatorial Committee
Chair: Dean Heller (NV) or Roger Wicker
(MS)
With the Senate flipping, committee leadership will dramatically change as well. We anticipate
a bit of a domino effect to happen with committee chairs and ranking members due to losses,
retirements and shifts in seniority—resulting in new faces holding the gavel of key committees.
Subject to change, but the chart below is our best guess at Senate committee leadership posts.
Committee
Agriculture, Nutrition &
Forestry
Chair
Pat Roberts (KS)
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Thad Cochran (MS)
John McCain (AZ)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Banking, Housing & Urban
Affairs
Commerce, Science, &
Transportation
Energy & Natural Resources
Richard Shelby (AL)
Ranking Member
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
*pending Stabenow leaves for
Budget
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Jack Reed (RI)
Debbie Stabenow (MI) or
Bernie Sanders (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
John Thune (SD)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Environment & Public Works
Finance
Foreign Relations
Health, Education, Labor &
Pensions
James Inhofe (OK)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
Bob Corker (TN)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Mary Landrieu (LA) or Maria
Cantwell (WA)
*Landrieu is facing a difficult
run-off on December 6
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Patty Murray (WA) or Bernie
Sanders (VT)
NCFC Post-Op: 2014 Midterm Elections
November 6, 2014
Homeland Security &
Government Affairs
Indian Affairs
Judiciary
Rules & Administration
Special – Aging
Select Intelligence
Small Business &
Entrepreneurship
Veterans’ Affairs
Ron Johnson (WI)
Tom Carper (DE)
John Barrasso (WY)
Chuck Grassley (IA)
Roy Blunt (MO)
Susan Collins (ME)
Richard Burr (NC)
David Vitter (LA)
Jon Tester (MT)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Charles Schumer (NY)
Bob Casey (PA)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Maria Cantwell (WA) or Ben
Cardin (MD)
Sherrod Brown (OH) or Jon
Tester (MT)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
House
A number of House races, including seven in California (one involving Co-op Caucus Co-Chair
Jim Costa), as well as seats in Arizona, Maryland, New York and Washington, are still up in the
air but Democrats were on a downhill slide looking to lose 13 to 16 seats. This would leave the
party with as few as 185 seats (218 for the majority, 435 total members). As Politico aptly put it,
“The last time Democrats had such a small House delegation, Herbert Hoover was president,
Charlie Chaplin was making movies, and Alka Seltzer was just hitting the shelves.”
In some cases, this election marks an end of an era—when moderate/conservative Democrats
(aka Blue Dogs) could survive in deeply Republican states. Two noteworthy Blue Dog losses
were Rep. Nick Rahall, who served 19-terms in Congress and was West Virginia’s last Democrat
in the House, and Rep. John Barrow of Georgia, who was the last white Democrat to represent
the Deep South.
Conversely, Republicans managed to pick up seats in at least one blue state—two from New
York.
NCFC Post-Op: 2014 Midterm Elections
November 6, 2014
Much like in the Senate, we anticipate the party leadership in the House to look much like it
does today. Although it is important to remember that the House GOP leadership was shaken up
this summer with Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary election loss. Leadership elections
typically take place in December but it’s safe to assume the following:
House Majority Leadership
House Minority Leadership
Speaker: John Boehner (OH)
Minority Leader: Nancy Pelosi (CA)
Majority Leader: Kevin McCarthy (CA)
Minority Whip: Steny Hoyer (MD)
Majority Whip: Steve Scalise (LA)
Asst. Democratic Leader: James Clyburn
(SC)
Chief Deputy Whip: Patrick McHenry (NC)
Conference Chair: Cathy McMorris Rodgers
(WA)
Conference Vice Chair: Lynn Jenkins (KS)
Conference Secretary: Virginia Foxx (NC)
National Republican Congressional
Committee: Greg Walden (OR), Roger
Williams (TX), or Aaron Schock (IL)
Caucus Chair: Xavier Becerra (CA)
Caucus Vice Chair: Joe Crowley (NY)
Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee Chair: Jim Himes (CT), Jared
Polis (CO) or Donna Edwards (MD)
Steering and Policy Committee Chair: Rosa
DeLauro (CT)
Republican Policy Committee Chair: Rep
Luke Messer (IN), Rep. Tom Reed (NY), or
Rep. Rob Woodall (GA)
Republican Study Committee Chair: Rep.
Bill Flores (TX), Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX),
or Rep. Mick Mulvaney (SC)
Eleven chairs are retiring or term-limited (GOP allows members to only serve six years as chair
of a particular committee), meaning we will see a number of new members in charge. The
Democrats will experience this as well due to several key retirements and losses—namely Energy
and Commerce Ranking Member Henry Waxman (CA) and Education and Workforce Ranking
Member George Miller (CA) who retired, and Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking
Member Nick Rahall who was defeated in the midterm elections.
Committee
Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Education & the Workforce
Energy & Commerce
Chair
Michael Conaway (TX)
Harold Rogers (KY)
Mac Thornberry (TX)
Tom Price (GA)
John Kline (MN)
Fred Upton (MI)
Ethics
TBD
Ranking Member
Collin Peterson (MN)
Adam Smith (WA)
Adam Smith (WA)
Chris Van Hollen (MD)
Bobby Scott (VA)
Anna Eshoo (CA) or Frank
Pallone (NJ)
TBD
NCFC Post-Op: 2014 Midterm Elections
November 6, 2014
Financial Services
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
House Administration
Intelligence
Judiciary
Rules & Administration
Natural Resources
Oversight & Government
Relations
Rules
Small Business
Transportation &
Infrastructure
Veterans’ Affairs
Ways & Means
Jeb Hensarling (TX) or Frank
Lucas (OK)
Ed Royce (CA)
Mike McCaul (TX)
Candice Miller (MI)
Peter King (NY), Jeff Miller
(FL), Devin Nunes (CA), or
Mike Pompeo (KS)
Bob Goodlatte (VA)
Roy Blunt (MO)
Rob Bishop (UT)
Jason Chaffetz (UT), Jim
Jordan (OH), John Mica (FL),
or Mike Turner (OH)
Pete Sessions (TX)
Steve Chabot (OH)
Bill Shuster (PA)
Jeff Miller (FL) or Doug
Lamborn (CO)
Paul Ryan (WI) or Kevin
Brady (TX)
Maxine Waters (CA)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Bennie Thompson (MS)
Robert Brady (PA)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD)
John Conyers (MI)
Charles Schumer (NY)
Peter DeFazio (OR)
*He also has seniority on
Transportation &
Infrastructure and could
make the switch.
Elijah Cummings (MD)
Louise Slaughter (NY)
Nydia Velazquez (NY)
TBD
Corrine Brown (FL)
Sander Levin (MI)
The rank-and-file of the committees will look different as well after re-apportionment to account
for fewer Democrats in Congress. Committee assignments will not be made until early next year
after members are sworn in.
And yes, we have just completed this round of elections but the countdown has already begun
for 2016, with roughly 730 days to go!
The 2014 election cost $3.7 billion. We spend
twice that much on Halloween.
By Chris Cillizza November 6 at 2:09 PM
It's become fashionable in politics to decry the role money plays in the
process. And, there's no question that a big part of being a candidate is
asking people for money. But, it's also worth putting just how much money
elections cost – $3.7 billion for the 2014 election, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics – into some context. And when you do that, it doesn't
seem like all that much.
Check out this chart from Republican lobbyist Bruce Mehlman's postelection slide deck, which he generously shared with me.
Yes, $3.7 billion is a massive amount of money. And, the 2016 presidential
election will, without question, eclipse that total -- and might even double it.
But, as Mehlman's chart makes clear, $3.7 billion is a pittance when it comes
to how much the American public spends on things like dry cleaning, video
games and, yes, Halloween.
Now, there's an important caveat to the chart above. The $3.7 billion spent
on the 2014 election comes from a relative pittance of the overall U.S.
population. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, just 666,773
individuals had donated more than $200 to campaigns, parties and political
action committees in the 2014 election cycle. (Contributions under $200 do
not have to be itemized.) Even if you assume another few thousand people -and that is a VERY high estimate -- helped fund the world of outside groups
that don't have to publicly report their donors, you are still under 670,000
total Americans responsible for that $3.7 billion.
Do a little math and you see that the number of people who helped finance
Tuesday's election amount to .2 percent of the United States' population of
316 million. All of the other categories in Mehlman's chart are populated by
lots and lots more Americans.
So, the truth is that elections aren't that expensive when compared to plenty
of other parts of American society that we never complain about costing too
much. Where election spending stands out is in how few people are
responsible for its cost.
New Members of the 114th Congress
United States Senate*
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Capito, 60, is the first woman to represent West
Virginia in the U.S. Senate. She is also the first
West Virginia Republican elected to the Senate
since the late 1950s. Now in her seventh term
in the U.S. House of Representatives, Capito is
a co-founder of the Congressional Coal Caucus
and a frequent critic of Obama administration
policies on energy and the environment that
threaten one of her state's major industries.
Daines, 52, was raised in Bozeman but spent
part of his career with Procter & Gamble,
including time in Asia. He was elected to the
U.S. House of Representatives in 2012. During
his Senate campaign, Daines focused on his
support for the state's coal, oil and timber
industries. In his single term in the House,
Daines pushed for expanded logging in federal
forest land and supported the Keystone oil
pipeline.
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Cotton, 37, defeated Democratic Sen. Mark
Pryor. His Senate victory comes as he finishes
his first term in the U.S. House of
Representatives. When Cotton takes his oath
of office, he will become the youngest U.S.
senator. Cotton also served five years in the
Army and completed two combat tours in Iraq
and Afghanistan, earning a Bronze Star among
other commendations.
Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Ernst, 44, made history as the first woman ever
elected to Congress from Iowa. Ernst earned
the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army
Reserves. In 2003, Ernst served as company
commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Ernst broke through a crowded GOP primary
field with a March campaign ad in which she
said her rural roots and experiences castrating
hogs would serve as training for how she would
cut pork in Washington.
*Subject to change. As of November 6, two Senate races remained too close to call (Alaska and
Virginia), and one is headed for a December 6th run-off (Louisiana).
Source: USA Today
Cory Gardner (R-CO)
David Perdue (R-GA)
Gardner, 40, worked on Capitol Hill as a
congressional aide to former Colorado GOP
Sen. Wayne Allard. He served in the Colorado
House for five years, then was elected to the
U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, and is
likely to position himself as a key player on
energy issues in the Senate.
Perdue, 64, is the former CEO of Dollar
General, a discount retail chain, and Reebok.
His campaign focused heavily on his role
leading the expansion of Dollar General, where,
according to his campaign website, he
"oversaw the company's expansion from 5,900
to 8,500 stores nationwide creating thousands
of quality jobs.” Perdue's business background
has made him wealthy, and he will become one
of the 50 richest members of Congress upon
his arrival in Washington.
James Lankford (R-OK)
Lankford, 46, won in a special election and is
taking over the Oklahoma U.S. Senate seat
held by Sen. Tom Coburn, who is retiring before
his term ends in the wake of a cancer
diagnosis. The Republican will serve the
remaining two years of Coburn's term before
facing reelection in 2016. Lankford was elected
to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010,
and has earned a reputation as a hardworking
conservative, ranked by the National Journal as
the 76th most conservative House member in
2014.
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Peters, 55, is currently in the U.S. House of
Representatives serving Detroit's wealthy
northern suburbs. In 2010, he barely beat back
the Republican wave to keep his seat. Then, in
2012, after Republicans tried to force him out
by placing him in a district with a senior
Democrat, Peters instead stepped into a
neighboring district in Detroit proper, winning
easily. He became the city’s first white to
representative to serve in Congress in decades.
*Subject to change. As of November 6, two Senate races remained too close to call (Alaska and
Virginia), and one is headed for a December 6th run-off (Louisiana).
Source: USA Today
Mike Rounds (R-SD)
Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Rounds, 60, and former governor of South
Dakota, easily won the open seat of retiring
Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. He served two
terms as governor from 2003 through 2011.
Before that, he was elected to five terms in the
South Dakota state Senate, where he served as
majority leader for six years. During the Senate
campaign, Rounds called for reining in the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to
reduce global warming emissions, eliminating
the U.S. Department of Education, and
repealing and replacing Obamacare.
Tillis, 54, was a partner with
PricewaterhouseCoopers before entering
politics. He was elected to the North Carolina
state House in 2006 and quickly rose through
the party ranks to become speaker. Tillis beat
incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan in what was one of
the most contested and highly watched races of
the midterm elections.
Ben Sasse (R-NE)
Sasse, 42, served in George W. Bush's
administration in different roles with the Justice
and Homeland Security departments, before
doing a stint as an assistant secretary at the
Department of Health and Human Services. For
a short time, Sasse was also chief of staff to
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). He was recruited
out of highschool to wrestle at Harvard
University and then quarterbacked the football
(not soccer) team at Oxford. Eventually Sasse
earned a doctorate at Yale.
*Subject to change. As of November 6, two Senate races remained too close to call (Alaska and
Virginia), and one is headed for a December 6th run-off (Louisiana).
Source: USA Today
New Members of the 114th Congress
U.S. House of Representatives*
Alabama: Gary Palmer (R-6)
Arizona: Ruben Gallego (D-7)
Arkansas: French Hill (R-2), Bruce Westerman (R-4)
California: Mark DeSaulnier (D-11), Steve Knight (R-25), Pete Aguilar (D-31), Ted Lieu (D33), Norma Torres (D-35), Mimi Walters (R-45)
Colorado: Ken Buck (R-4)
Florida: Gwen Graham (D-2), Curt Clawson (R-19), Carlos Curbelo (R-26)
Georgia: Buddy Carter (R-1), Jody Hice (R-10), Barry Loudermilk (R-11), Rick Allen (R-12)
Hawaii: Mark Takai (D-1)
Illinois: Bob Dold (R-10), Mike Bost (R-12)
Iowa: Rod Blum (R-1), David Young (R-3)
Maine: Bruce Poliquin (R-2)
Massachusetts: Seth Moulton (D-6)
Michigan: John Moolenaar (R-4), Mike Bishop (R-8), David Trott (R-11), Debbie Dingell (D12), Brenda Lawrence (D-14)
Minnesota: Tom Emmer (R-6)
Montana: Ryan Zinke (R-at large)
Nevada: Cresent Hardy (R-4)
Nebraska: Brad Ashford (D-2)
New Hampshire: Frank Guinta (R-1)
New Jersey: Donald Norcross (D-1), Tom MacArthur (R-3), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-12)
*Subject to change. As of November 6, there were a handful of key races around the country that had not been
called, including seven in California (one involving Co-op Caucus Co-Chair Jim Costa), as well as seats in Arizona,
Maryland, New York and Washington.
New York: Lee Zeldin (R-1), Kathleen Rice (D-4), Elise Stefanik (R-21), John Katko (R-24)
North Carolina: Mark Walker (R-6), David Rouzer (R-7), Alma Adams (D-12)
Oklahoma: Steve Russell (R-5)
Pennsylvania: Ryan Costello (R-6), Brendan F. Boyle (D-13)
Texas: John Ratcliffe (R-4), Will Hurd (R-23), Brian Babin (R-36)
Utah: Mia Love (R-4)
Virginia: Dave Brat (R-7), Don Beyer (D-8), Barbara Comstock (R-10)
West Virginia: Alex Mooney (R-2), Evan Jenkins (R-3)
Wisconsin: Glenn Grothman (R-6)
Non-voting new members
American Samoa: Aumua Amata Radewagen (R-at large)
Virgin Islands: Stacey Plaskett (D-at large)
*Subject to change. As of November 6, there were a handful of key races around the country that had not been
called, including seven in California (one involving Co-op Caucus Co-Chair Jim Costa), as well as seats in Arizona,
Maryland, New York and Washington.
Congressional Farmer
Cooperative Caucus
Membership
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), Co-Chair
Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), Co-Chair *
House (52 43):
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL)
Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) *
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL)
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA)
Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA)
Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Co-Chair
Senator John Thune (R-SD), Co-Chair
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD)
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI)
Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA)
Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI)
Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Rep. Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)
Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN)
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
50 F Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 626-8700 Fax: (202) 626-8722
www.ncfc.org | facebook: www.facebook.com/FarmerCoop | twitter: @FarmerCoop
Senate (17 12):
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Senator Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Senator Al Franken (D-MN)
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Senator John Thune (R-SD)
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS)
* As of November 6, the race had not been
called.
Congressional Farmer Cooperative Caucus
I.
Purpose
Provide a forum for Members of Congress interested in working together in support of public policy and programs to protect and
enhance the ability of farmers to join together to form cooperative associations to improve their income from the marketplace,
manage risk, and strengthen their bargaining power, allowing individual producers to better compete globally.
II. Goals
Promote greater awareness and understanding of farmer cooperatives and their importance as a proven tool to help individual
family farmers and ranchers through the ups and downs of weather, commodity markets, and technological change and provide
timely analysis and other information on economic and market trends, including existing and proposed laws and regulations
impacting farmer cooperatives and the ability of farmer to form cooperative associations.
III. Membership
Bicameral and bipartisan.
IV. Officers:
Co-Chair:
Co-Chair: Co-Chair: Co-Chair:
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator John Thune
Representative Sam Graves
Representative Jim Costa
V. Designated Employee(s):
Adam Durand (Office of Sen. Klobuchar)
Brendon Plack (Office of Sen. Thune)
JP Mason (Office of Rep. Graves)
Donald Grady (Office of Rep. Costa)
(202) 224-3244
(202) 224-2321
(202) 225-7041
(202) 225-3341
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
50 F Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 626-8700 Fax: (202) 626-8722
www.ncfc.org | facebook: www.facebook.com/FarmerCoop | twitter: @FarmerCoop
CONGRESSIONAL
OUTLOOK
Tel: 202-626-8700
Fax: 202-626-8722
50 F Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
www.ncfc.org
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS UPDATE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NCFC Government Affairs Committee
NCFC Staff
November 6, 2014
Out of the Ashes—Might our Government Actually Do
Something Post-Election?
The 113th Congress will come to an unimpressive close in a few short weeks. Sure, we’ll probably
have last-minute squabbles but nothing like years past taking us to the brink of this or that cliff.
Most in Congress just hope to get by with an abbreviated lame-duck session to clear a short list
of “must-pass” bills and then get out of town—effectively putting the federal government on
autopilot for the immediate future.
Autopilot sounds a bit cavalier when there are so many big issues facing the nation and around
the world but it is an apt description. The question is for how long?
Lame Duck Session
It’s not a stretch to say that the outlook for the lame duck session is linked to the results of this
week’s elections.
You would be in good company by assuming the 113th Congress will do the bare minimum
necessary with an eye to next year, especially now that Republicans are set to control the 114th
Congress. At the same time, Senate Democrats will look to push through as many of the
President’s nominees and lifetime appointments as possible before Republicans take over (e.g.
replacing Attorney General Eric Holder tops the list).
With respect to federal spending, one possible scenario would be similar to years past that
involved combining the appropriations bills into one omnibus and adhering to the $1.014 billion
top line for Fiscal Year 2015 that was set by last year’s budget agreement.
Alternatively, Republicans may push for a short-term stop-gap measure so they can negotiate
spending bills early next year that more fully reflect GOP priorities. Or, they may decide to start
fresh in 2015, aiming to tackle funding priorities in the Fiscal Year 2016 spending bills, in which
case they might call for a continuing resolution (CR) for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015 but
freeze spending at 2014 levels. This would allow them to hit the ground running at the start of
the 114th Congress on GOP priority bills. To garner enough support for the latter approach, the
CR could be coupled with a tax extenders package of some sort to sweeten the deal.
Beyond these more immediate policy matters, they will likely punt on everything else.
Representing the Business Interests of Agriculture
Government Affairs Report
November 6, 2014
Page 2 of 4
Looking Ahead to the 114th Congress
It is hard to speculate on what the next two years will be like; what the 114th Congress or the
White House will or won’t do and whether it will be good or bad for farmer cooperatives. If
recent history is any indication, the next big period of legislative action might be in the first six
months after the new president is inaugurated in early 2017. That said, this next Congress has
to show it can get things done and the window to do so may be the first nine months of 2015
before presidential politics takes hold.
Stating the obvious, President Obama is well into the lame duck portion of his tenure in the
White House. Will he seek some grand bargain on a major policy matter as a legacy of his
presidency or will he seek an aggressive, go-it-alone regulatory agenda that yields little appetite
for political camaraderie with the GOP?
President Obama has virtually no political capital left, and it will likely be spent on items that
are at the top of his priorities list. For any issue, it comes down to whether this is something he
cares about and has staying power, and how much of that dwindling political capital will be
expended to achieve it. Like any administration coming to an end, we also will see this
administration put forward policies that are nods to core constituencies.
For example, the President has a major climate change initiative underway and his team will
tend very carefully to the implementation details of his rulemaking on GHG emissions controls
for coal-fired plants and they will look for other possible wins. He will undertake serious and
substantive actions on immigration policy; both because he thinks it right but also because he
thinks it is good Presidential politics for his party. He will continue to solidify his gains on
Obamacare and try and turn that into a success story that can be highlighted by his party in
2016.
While it is wise to expect some Administration initiatives that are particularly oriented towards
firing up or satisfying to the Democratic base, and likely problematic for agriculture, the odds of
this are not as great as many presume. We don’t expect any new initiatives as big as the “waters
of the US” rulemakings in the last two years, but there will be policy initiatives important to
farmer cooperatives.
At their core, the President’s actions will have a direct impact on the 2016 presidential election.
This may matter more to him than the congressional elections. Positioning the Democrat
nominee as best as possible will be a top priority. Never underestimate the power behind the
need to mobilize or excite the base. A bit more inside baseball but also of equal political
consequence, never underestimate the drive to be in power when a U.S. Supreme Court justice
nominee is on the line.
What about Congress relative to presidential actions or passing legislation?
With a Republican-controlled Congress, GOP leaders will be looking for any opportunity to
promote their brand, highlight failings of the administration and pursuing a legislative agenda
that speaks to their core constituencies.
However, the dynamics in the House will not have changed. The social and political
demographics of Congressional Districts remain more homogenous than ever, and the
Representatives they send to Congress will still reflect that deep partisanship, even as their
collective approval ratings are in the cellar for not being able to get anything done. The fact is,
Government Affairs Report
November 6, 2014
Page 3 of 4
while people do want things done; those things some Districts want tend to be the polar opposite
of that which other Districts want. Everyone sees compromise as capitulation. The formula for
stalemate in the House leading to great dissatisfaction with its performance remains.
Even with a comfortable GOP majority, it will be hard to overcome the filibuster threshold of 60
votes in the Senate. Democrats have lost their conservative/moderate members making their
caucus a much more cohesive liberal block. In which case, a GOP majority cannot count on
much cross-over. You can expect President Obama to play hardball, threatening to veto bills
that stop his top efforts. This is especially true when it comes to federal spending as he will not
hesitate to blame a Republican-controlled Congress if the government shuts down. This could
lead to “cleaner” appropriations bills.
All bets are off if there is a national emergency of serious and widespread proportions. Should
such a thing happen, we know that as a people we can and would rise above all this resistance
and get something done. But barring such an emergency, it is fair to think Congress and the
White House won’t work together to take action, that Congress will not pass any legislation
hoping to be able to force the President to sign it, and that the Administration will keep to its
own business and not bother with Congress.
Proving Conventional Wisdom Wrong
So how might this relatively sound hypothesis prove wrong, at least at the margin? History has
shown that major deals can be struck when the White House and Congress are in opposing
parties. After all, presidents generally do tend to worry about their “legacy.”
For example, it wasn’t that long ago when a Democrat President in the last two years of his
second term cut a major deal with a GOP-controlled Senate—welfare reform under President
Bill Clinton. And as we saw with then Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the negotiations
with the President to resolve the government shutdown crisis, Sen. McConnell is willing to strike
a deal even if his House counterparts don’t want him to or can’t. Now that Republicans are in
charge, they can set and control the terms of compromise with the Administration.
The incoming Majority Leader also is keeping a watchful eye on the Senate landscape in 2016.
Much like Senate Democrats in red states that lost this week, the script will flip for Senate
Republicans in blue states. Keeping control of the Senate in 2016 will be a challenge for the
GOP simply because the numbers are not on their side. The GOP will have to defend 24 seats to
the Democrats’ 10, and only two of those Democratic seats are in competitive states.
Republicans have put themselves in as strong a position as possible with potentially a 54-seat
majority coming out of the midterm elections. But the 2016 elections will have Democrats on
offense and the benefit of being down-ballot from a presidential contest. So if there are issues or
matters that a Republican-led Senate thinks should and need to be addressed, and it is in their
party’s interest in 2016 to do so in order to help some of the more vulnerable Republican
candidates, action can result.
With this in mind, we are keeping a close eye on a few issues.
1. Trade and trade promotion authority. Obama cares about trade. He believes it is
good for the country and its future to see it expanded. So do Republicans in the Senate.
Will it be easy to get anything passed? No. Is it out of the question? Don’t presume so.
Government Affairs Report
November 6, 2014
Page 4 of 4
2. Immigration reform. This is a very serious longshot, but the leverage that
immigration issues can bring to the 2016 presidential election might be enough to bring
Senate Republicans back to the table, particularly if the President’s own initiatives create
a momentum and political imperative for further action. At a minimum, don’t presume
that Obama wouldn’t strike a deal with a Republican Senate to take reform further down
the road, and that he would do so even if Senate Democrats would prefer he not do this.
This all depends, however, on whatever the President does via executive action and the
subsequent reaction by those in Congress.
3. Tax reform. It is fair to expect that in 2015 there will be tax legislation considered.
There is real and serious bipartisan anger over the corporate inversions to avoid U.S.
corporate tax rates. There is also real and serious anger in other quarters of the Congress
over the fact that the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world. These
matters will come up in 2015. It is a longshot to think that legislation will get passed.
But as legislation gets developed for consideration, budget offsets will be discussed and
put on the table. This is where Section 199 could be in real danger.
4. Transportation and infrastructure. We have ignored our infrastructure needs for
far too long. A crisis is possible given the rail care shortages for agricultural freight, the
largest corn crop in history, bumper bean and wheat crops, aging locks, dams and
barges, and a general need to upgrade our transportation infrastructure. Then there’s
the highway trust fund which is being held together temporarily until next spring. Out of
crisis, legislation could emerge. Additionally, the Keystone Pipeline will be a high
priority for Congress—whether they will force the Administration or come to some sort
of agreement, odds are strong that this will move forward.
As an organization, NCFC must remain flexible in this environment, responding to a regulatory
onslaught that will only grow as the Administration heads into its waning days while prepared to
capitalize on any of the narrow windows of opportunity for legislative progress.
GMOs &
FOOD LABELING
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NCFC Council
NCFC Staff
11/6/2014
NCFC Co-Chairs Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
As our attention refocuses from the midterm election to the legislative outlook in the 114th
Congress, the NCFC team is preparing to lay the groundwork to enact a uniform, national
solution to counteract state referendums and legislation mandating GMO labels on food
products. As you may know, NCFC has joined forces with the Grocery Manufacturers
Association (GMA), along with many other food and agriculture organizations which form the
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF), to find a legislative solution to this problem.
On behalf of NCFC, I have accepted the role as Co-chair of the coalition’s steering committee
alongside Pam Bailey, CEO of GMA. This new role provides us with the vital opportunity to
help shape legislation to prevent the varying state-by-state labeling initiatives and costly
disruptions to the food and agricultural supply chain.
As you may recall, The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was introduced this past year in the
U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and G.K. Butterfield (DNC). The coalition is currently working with Congressional staff to prepare the reintroduction of
a modified version of this bill early next year.
Members of the CFSAF Steering Committee include:
Pam Bailey, Grocery Manufacturers Association (Co-Chair)
Chuck Conner, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (Co-Chair)
Dale Moore, American Farm Bureau Federation
Steve Censky, American Soybean Association
Cathleen Enright, Biotechnology Industry Organization
John Bode, Corn Refiners Association
Chris Novak, National Corn Growers Association
If you have any questions regarding the coalition’s efforts, please contact me or Kelsey Swango
(kswango@ncfc.org) who is leading our legislative efforts on this issue.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
FROM: Steering Committee of the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF)
RE: Colorado and Oregon – What It Means Moving Forward
DATE: November 5, 2014
Last night, with their support of consistent, accurate and affordable labeling standards, voters in Colorado
and Oregon stood up to the scare tactics of activists who oppose products that embrace well-tested
technology that has been proven not only in labs around the world but over the last 20 years in the
marketplace. The clear defeat of Proposition 105 and Measure 92, moreover, proves that consumers do
not support a state-by-state patchwork of labeling laws that lead to misinformation, loopholes and confusion
at the grocery store.
While these victories are reassuring, supporters of biotechnology and accurate food labeling must push on.
These victories came at great costs and were by no means guaranteed. We cannot continue fighting these
battles on a state-by-state basis. We need a permanent solution. Fortunately, such a solution already
exists. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by
Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), would reaffirm the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) as America’s preeminent authority on food safety and labeling requirements.
This legislation is vital to preventing seemingly endless state-by-state battles, as well as costly disruptions
to supply chains. But as we are all aware, getting anything through Congress in the current political
environment can be a very challenging proposition. That is why your support and continued engagement
are more important than ever.
CFSAF currently has state-based coalitions in thirteen states 1 with a focus on members of the Health
Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The subcommittee is scheduled to hold a
hearing on the bill on December 10, 2014. If your organization is contacted by these teams, we would
sincerely appreciate your assistance in helping them. If your organization is not in one of these states
please contact your Members of Congress and encourage them to engage on the issue. Better still:
encourage them to sign on as a co-sponsor in the 114th Congress.
Legislation will be introduced early in the new Congress and it is critically important that we have positive
momentum behind the bill. The anti-GMO activists are not giving up; we must not either.
CFSAF field teams are currently operational in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Texas, California,
Illinois, Washington and Tennessee.
1
Let’s make sure last night was the end of these wasteful battles and the beginning of a solution that
benefits all American consumers nationwide.
Pam Bailey, Grocery Manufacturers Association (Co-Chair)
Chuck Conner, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (Co-Chair)
Dale Moore, American Farm Bureau Federation
Steve Censky, American Soybean Association
Cathleen Enright, Biotechnology Industry Organization
John Bode, Corn Refiners Association
Chris Novak, National Corn Growers Association
###
11/6/2014
Colorado Voters Defeat Proposal to Require GMO Labeling of Foods - WSJ - WSJ
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers
visit http://www.djreprints.com.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/colorado-voters-defeat-proposal-to-require-gmo-labeling-of-foods-1415206857
BUSINESS
Food Industry Wins Round in GMOLabeling Fight
Ballot Measures to Require Labeling Were Defeated in Colorado, Oregon
A grocery store employee wipes down a soup bar with a display informing customers of organic, GMO-free
oils, in Boulder, Colo. Colorado voters defeated a proposal that would have required labeling of foods
containing genetically modified ingredients. AP
By ANNIE GASPARRO and JACOB BUNGE
Updated Nov. 5, 2014 6:40 p.m. ET
Big food producers and agribusiness companies defeated measures in Oregon and
Colorado that would have required labeling of foods with genetically modified
ingredients, after costly campaigns that energized critics and backers of the technology
in two more states.
The two states were the latest battlegrounds in a widening national fight between
critics of the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and the food companies
and seed makers that use biotechnology in a range of crops and food products.
Opponents of labeling in Oregon outspent that measure’s backers by $20.5 million to
$8.2 million, while in Colorado the ratio was $16.7 million for anti-labeling forces to
less than $1 million for proponents, according to state records. That follows a pattern
in the defeat of similar measures in California in 2012 and in Washington in 2013. In
total, GMO labeling opponents have spent more than $100 million in those four
contests, according to state records, about four times the amount spent by labeling
http://online.wsj.com/articles/colorado-voters-defeat-proposal-to-require-gmo-labeling-of-foods-1415206857
1/4
11/6/2014
Colorado Voters Defeat Proposal to Require GMO Labeling of Foods - WSJ - WSJ
backers, which include consumer advocacy groups as well as purveyors of organic and
natural foods.
While the votes mark victories for groups and companies like Kraft Foods Group Inc.,
PepsiCo Inc., and Monsanto Co. that have fought mandatory labeling efforts, the
battles have sharply escalated the national debate over GMOs and put the industry on
the defensive.
“These victories are a bit hollow,” said Michael Gruber, vice president of government
affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents most
major food companies and state-mandated labeling. “To be drawn in to these ballot
initiatives is unpleasant and draws criticism,” not to mention its “tremendous cost,” he
added.
RELATED COVERAGE
GMO Labeling Faces Ballot Test in Oregon, Colorado
Vermont to Enact GMO Food-Labeling Law
Food Industry Sues Vermont Over Label Law for Genetically Modified Products
Which States Are Considering Labels for GMO Foods?
“Every single person in Colorado and Oregon knows what a GMO is now,” said George
Kimbrell, attorney at the nonprofit Center for Food Safety and lead author of the
Oregon labeling initiative, Measure No. 92.
The Oregon vote was extremely close, with about 50.5% against Measure No. 92 as of
Wednesday afternoon, after the Associated Press called the measure’s defeat. The
similar Colorado measure, Proposition 105, failed by a vote of 66% to 34%.
Meanwhile, voters in Maui, Hawaii, on Tuesday narrowly passed a measure that bans
growing GMO crops until an analysis of the environmental and public-health impact is
reviewed by the county. The measure—which passed 50% to 48%—could threaten some
agricultural companies’ operations in the Aloha State, where year-round growing
conditions for decades have drawn seed and chemical companies seeking to develop
new products.
More than 90% of corn and soybean acres planted and large shares of other crops
grown in the U.S. are products of bioengineering. Critics claim GMO use harms the
environment and could pose human health risks, and that consumers have a right to
http://online.wsj.com/articles/colorado-voters-defeat-proposal-to-require-gmo-labeling-of-foods-1415206857
2/4
11/6/2014
Colorado Voters Defeat Proposal to Require GMO Labeling of Foods - WSJ - WSJ
know what is in their food. GMO backers dismiss those claims as wrong or unproven,
and say that labeling would unjustly stigmatize technology that helps produce heartier
crops and keep food prices down.
The food industry is throwing its support behind a bill introduced earlier this year in
the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), which would bar
individual states from mandating GMO labeling, leaving that authority solely with the
Food and Drug Administration. That doesn’t satisfy GMO critics, though, since the FDA
already has regulatory authority over food made with genetically engineered
ingredients, and has said that GMO products now being sold are safe.
Mr. Pompeo aims to hold a hearing on the bill in the coming weeks, a spokesman said
Wednesday.
Vermont’s government in May made it the first state to unilaterally require labeling,
starting in 2016. Its law is now facing a lawsuit from the Grocery Manufacturers
Association and other industry groups.
Monsanto, the biggest seller of genetically modified seeds, plans a legal challenge to the
Maui initiative, according to a spokeswoman. She said the measure, if it takes effect,
would have “significant negative consequences for the local economy, Hawaii
agriculture and our business on the island.” Monsanto employs about 1,000 people in
Hawaii.
Dow Chemical Co. , which runs farming operations in Maui County and employs about
170 people on Hawaii’s Molokai and Kauai islands, is considering its options, a
spokeswoman said. “[W]e believe that the ban would be illegal, and we intend to
protect our legal rights,” she said.
Write to Annie Gasparro at annie.gasparro@wsj.com and Jacob Bunge at
jacob.bunge@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/articles/colorado-voters-defeat-proposal-to-require-gmo-labeling-of-foods-1415206857
3/4
Maui voters approve GMO moratorium
By Sarah Gonzalez
MAUI, Hawaii, Nov. 5, 2014 - Voters in Maui County, Hawaii, on Tuesday narrowly approved a
moratorium on the testing or cultivation of genetically modified or engineered crops in the
county until further health and environmental tests are conducted. The measure was approved
by a vote of 23,082 (50.2 percent) to 22,005 (47.9 percent), according to state election results.
(Editor's Note: In the Nov. 5 edition of the Agri-Pulse newsletter, the final vote was incorrectly
reported as a narrow defeat for the measure. We regret the error.)
Opponents, led by Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and the Council for Biotechnology
Information, raised more than $7 million in a failed effort to defeat the measure. The
companies farm more than 3,500 acres in the county, which consists of the islands of Maui,
Molakai and Lanai, employing more than 600 people.
The Shaka Movement, the group behind the Maui initiative, said the companies are
endangering the region by testing herbicides and genetically modified plants.
“Our victory today sends a strong message to the agrochemical industry in Hawaii -- community
members will not sit idly by and watch these companies threaten the health and safety of our
people and our planet,” said Ashley Lukens, program director at the Hawaii Center for Food
Safety. “Voters saw past the misleading claims of pesticide companies like Monsanto and Dow
Chemical and demanded accountability to the community.”
Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban Initiative said that while the measure was billed
as a “temporary moratorium” on certain types of farming, it “would in fact criminalize and
place an immediate and permanent ban on longstanding farming operations.”
In Washington, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) said the ban “will ultimately cut
jobs and jeopardize the local economy and the future of agriculture in Hawaii.”
BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood issued the following statement in response to the vote.
“Agricultural biotechnology has contributed to the innovative farming solutions that have
enabled farmers to grow more food on less land with fewer pesticide applications, less water
and reduced on-farm fuel use. This initiative will criminalize these hard-working farmers and
will prohibit long-standing farming operations in Maui and on neighboring islands.
“Agricultural biotech farming operations - whose presence contributes substantially to Maui
County's economy - will essentially be forced to shut down, leaving hundreds of local citizens
without jobs.
“Even more damaging, passage of this initiative is a ban on innovation and sustainable farming.
“The science of genetic engineering led to development of the Rainbow papaya, which is
credited with saving Hawaii's papaya industry. This technology has the potential to help other
plants and crops - such as orchids, citrus, strawberries, coffee and bananas - withstand pests
and disease. Now, Maui County farmers will be prohibited from using those improvements.
“We are proud of the successes and potential of biotechnology, and we will continue to defend
our industry, our companies and their employees from baseless political claims that forbid
science and eliminate farmer choice.”
GMO labeling measures defeated in Colorado and Oregon (for now)
In Colorado, voters solidly defeated GMO labeling Proposition 105 that would have required
some food that has been genetically modified or treated with genetically modified material to
be labeled, “produced with genetic engineering,” starting in July 2016. The measure was
defeated by almost 70 percent of the votes Tuesday night.
A coalition of food and agriculture companies including Monsanto, PepsiCo and Kraft Foods,
raised over $16 million in funds to defeat the measure, according to financial statements
reported to the Colorado government. Supporters consisting of Food Democracy Action and the
Organic Consumer’s Fund, raised under $900,000.
Oregon’s GMO labeling measure was going down to the wire, and looked likely to pass through
most of the evening. But as of 7 am. Wednesday, the measure was defeated by 20,625 votes
out of over 1.2 million cast, according to the Oregon’s secretary of state’s web site. Still
supporters say more ballots are yet to be counted and may sway the outcome.
A coalition of groups supporting the measure, which included top contributors Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety Action Fund, raised around $9 million to get voters
to back the measure. Opponents, including DuPont Pioneer, Monsanto and PepsiCo, raised over
$20 million to defeat the labeling measure - a new state record.
Supporters of “Right to Know” campaigns in both states said it should be mandatory that food
companies and manufacturers place information on the package about whether any of the
ingredients in their food were made with transgenic crops. However, opponents argued
throughout their campaigns that the labeling measures arbitrarily exempted some foods from
the labeling requirements, and would force food producers to change labels and packaging
unless they reformulate their products with non-GMO or organic ingredients.
The only state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law—without requiring neighboring states to
do the same—is Vermont. That law is being challenged by the Grocery Manufacturers
Association and other opponents in court.
In Maui, voters also defeated an effort to place a moratorium on growing genetically modified
crops. If approved, the measure would have prohibited any growth, testing or cultivation of
genetically modified or engineered crops in the Hawaii county until its officials conducted
further health environmental tests.
Opposition to the measure, led by Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and the Council for
Biotechnology Information, raised more than $7 million for efforts to defeat it, overwhelming
the provision’s supporters. Combined, the companies farm more than 3,500 acres in the region
and employ more than 600 people.
The group behind the Maui initiative, called the Shaka Movement, said the companies are
endangering the region by testing herbicides and genetically modified plants.
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
©2013 Agri-Pulse Communications Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
TAX REFORM
The Section 199 Deduction for
Domestic Production
Activities Income
Background
Enacted as part of The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, replacing the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion
(ETI).
Deduction applies to proceeds from agricultural or horticultural products, including fertilizer, fuel, and other
supplies.
Deduction is part of permanent law and is now fully phased-in at 9 percent (limited to 50 percent of
taxpayer’s annual W-2 wages). Deduction is capped at 6 percent for oil and gas production.
Section 199 contains provisions recognizing the unique nature of cooperatives and cooperative taxation.
Cooperatives may choose to keep the deduction and use it for capitol improvements, or pass it through to
their members, making it extremely beneficial to both cooperatives and their farmer-members.
Benefits
Section 199 benefits have been returned to the economy in the form of increased spending on agricultural
production and increased spending in rural communities, including new capital assets and expansion of
operations. Farmers in many areas of production utilize the deduction -- including cotton, dairy, grains,
fruits, soybeans, sugar beets, oil and gas refining, biofuels, and livestock.
Future as Part of Tax Reform
In this challenging economic environment, Section 199 continues to very successfully serve the purposes of
the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 by encouraging job creation and economic growth.
The Administration and some legislators have proposed retaining and expanding the deduction as part of
tax reform efforts.
Some have suggested lowering corporate rates to offset the impact of the loss of the deduction. However,
because most farmers are taxed at individual rates, a lowered corporate rate would not offset the loss of the
deduction.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
50 F Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 626-8700 Fax: (202) 626-8722
www.ncfc.org | facebook: www.facebook.com/FarmerCoop | twitter: @FarmerCoop
September 2014
October 29, 2014
ANTITRUST LITIGATION UPDATE
Judge Denies Mushroom Growers’ Motion to Reconsider Non-Grower Issue; Certifies Issue for Third
Circuit Review. The judge in the mushroom cooperative antitrust case has denied the growers’ motion
to reconsider his decision that the inclusion of one non-grower as a voting member of the cooperative
destroyed the cooperative’s limited antitrust immunity. However, the judge certified his decision for
appeal, allowing the growers to take this issue to the Third Circuit now instead of waiting until the case
is completed at the district court level. A summary and the full text of the decision are available here.
The case is In Re: Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-0620, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Belle Foods Files Copycat CWT Case. Direct purchaser plaintiffs Belle Foods and others have brought
suit in the Southern District of Illinois against Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) and other dairy
cooperative defendants. The new suit follows on the heels of the grant of class certification by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in a 2011 case filed against the same defendants.
Certification in the California suit was granted in the District of Columbia and fourteen of the fifteen
states sought by the plaintiffs; the class includes all consumers who purchased dairy products from 2003
to the present.
Both suits allege that CWT’s producer-funded herd reduction program caused increased prices for
indirect purchasers of milk and that the defendants are not eligible for Capper-Volstead protections.
The plaintiffs in the newly filed suit are Alabama-based Belle Foods and the bankruptcy estate of
Yarnell’s Ice Cream Company, Inc., based in Arkansas. The case is Belle Foods Trust, et al., v. National
Milk Producers Federation, et. al, Case No. 3:14-01014 (S.D. Ill.).
TAX UPDATE
GROWMARK Files Tax Court Petition in Section 199 Calculation Dispute. Earlier this month, GROWMARK
filed a petition in U.S. Tax Court disputing the IRS’s requirement that the cooperative perform separate
Section 199 deduction calculations for patronage and nonpatronage income. GROWMARK’s petition also
includes a dispute over deductibility of ethanol and biodiesel credits. The case is GROWMARK , Inc. and
Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, Dkt. No. 23797-14 (U.S. Tax Court). The docket report can be viewed
here.
Ag Groups Brief House Agriculture Committee Staff. NCFC, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and
the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association recently hosted an educational briefing for House Agriculture
Committee staff and others. The October 22 event focused on several key tax provisions, including: the
Section 199 deduction; Section 179 small business expensing; bonus depreciation; cash accounting; and
the estate tax. The goal of the briefing was to give staffers a basic understanding of tax provisions of
importance to cooperatives, farmers, and ranchers, and to stress the importance of the provisions in
light of the tax extenders debate and tax reform.
ACCOUNTING UPDATE
Taxpayer Advocate Comments on FATCA Challenges for Taxpayers. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina
Olson recently commented on the new Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) reporting
requirements. As the National Taxpayer Advocate, Olson leads the Taxpayer Advocate Service, an
independent organization within the IRS, in helping taxpayers resolve problems with the Service.
Speaking to an audience at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association FATCA Policy
Symposium on October 7, Olson said: "This is a piece of legislation that is so big and so far-reaching,and
[has] so many different moving pieces, and is rolling out in an incremental fashion . . . that you really
won't be able to know what its consequences are, intended or otherwise."
Olson also commented on the FATCA penalty regime, which provides for a $10,000 penalty for failing to
disclose a foreign bank account, and up to $50,000 for failing to disclose after IRS notification. Olson
noted that for someone with a $51,000 unreported foreign bank account, that could be a $60,000
penalty. "Putting a $60,000 penalty on someone for failing to report a $51,000 account does not seem
to me like a penalty that is proportioned objectively to the offense," she said.
Congress enacted FATCA in 2010 to combat international tax evasion. The Act requires U.S. taxpayers
holding foreign financial assets to report information about those assets on Form 8938. IRS and Treasury
issued final regulations implementing FATCA in January 2013.
The upcoming Legal, Tax and Accounting Conference will feature a session on FATCA compliance. The
conference is February 11-13 in San Diego. Registration is available here.
NCFC SUSTAINABILITY
PROJECT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NCFC Government Affairs Committee
NCFC Staff
November 6, 2014
NCFC Sustainability Initiative
The NCFC Executive Council held their fall meeting in September and discussed the
agenda for the organization in the year to come. One topic that was discussed in depth
was that of sustainability.
Sustainability has grown to be a major theme in agribusiness and farmer cooperatives
are feeling increased pressure to provide a sustainability plan to satisfy customer
requirements. It is an issue that we will be covering in depth at our upcoming annual
meeting.
For these reasons, the Executive Council has charged NCFC staff with developing a
sustainability plan to benefit the business interests of its member cooperatives that will
be launched at the annual meeting in February.
Over the next few months, NCFC staff will be working to determine the needs of
membership and the appropriate plan to address your sustainability goals. We’ve ask
NCFC members to provide a sustainability contact for each cooperative for us to work
with throughout this process.
We are once again working with Aimpoint Research to survey NCFC member
sustainability staff and CEOs to determine a roadmap most beneficial to members. The
survey will determine what co-ops are already doing in the sustainability arena and
where NCFC can help fill in the gaps to create a member-driven sustainability plan to
meet customer demands.
The survey will be distributed Monday, November 10, and it will close at the end of the
month. After the survey results are collected, we will ask the sustainability staff
members to help guide the direction of the initiative.
Your feedback is critical during the development and implementation of the
sustainability plan. Thank you in advance for your guidance and willingness to support
this new endeavor. Please contact Kelsey Swango (kswango@ncfc.org) or NCFC staff for
more information. Below is the proposed timeline for developing the sustainability plan:
Project Timeline
October
November
December
January
February 12th
Survey Development and Testing
Conduct Survey and Gather Data
Compile and Analyze Data
Plan Development: In-person Meeting with Member Sustainability Staff
Present Sustainability Roadmap at NCFC Annual Meeting
The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives has partnered with Aimpoint Research, an
independent market research firm, to gain insight from valued members like you on the topic
of sustainability. This research is designed to help NCFC better understand your
organizational needs and facilitate the design of programs and initiatives to best serve the
cooperative system in to the future.
If you would kindly take the time to complete the survey, we would greatly appreciate it. The
survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept strictly
confidential. This survey is intended to be completed by sustainability specialists within your
organization.
NCFC values its relationship with your organization and thanks you in advance for your timely
response.
Please note that the following questions are simply intended to help us determine who has
participated in the survey. Responses to this survey will be aggregated for reporting
purposes. Your unique responses will be kept strictly confidential.
1) Please enter your first name:
2) Please enter your last name:
3) What is your email address:
4) Please enter the name of your cooperative:
5) Please enter your job title:
6) What percentage of your work hours are devoted to sustainability?
( ) 0-25%
( ) 26-50%
( ) 51-75%
( ) 76-100%
First we would like your views on sustainability as it applies to your cooperative.
7) How does your cooperative define the term “sustainability”?
Please answer the following questions as they relate to your cooperative's definition of
sustainability.
8) How important is sustainability to your cooperative?
( ) Very important
( ) Somewhat important
( ) Not important
( ) Don't know
9) How aware are your members of the application of sustainability to agriculture?
( ) Very aware
( ) Somewhat aware
( ) Not aware
( ) Don't know
10) Have your members expressed interest in your co-op getting involved with sustainability?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Don't know
11) How important is sustainability to your customers?
( ) Very important
( ) Somewhat important
( ) Not important
( ) Don't know
12) Is your cooperative involved in any external sustainability efforts within agriculture?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Don't know
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Is your cooperative involved in any external sustainability
efforts within agriculture?" #12 is one of the following answers ("Yes")
13) Please describe the external sustainability efforts within agriculture with which your
cooperative is involved.
14) Does your cooperative have its own program(s) to advocate for sustainable practices?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Don't know
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Does your cooperative have its own program(s) to advocate
for sustainable practices?" #14 is one of the following answers ("Yes")
15) Please describe your cooperative's program(s) to advocate for sustainable practices.
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Does your cooperative have its own program(s) to advocate
for sustainable practices?" #14 is one of the following answers ("No", "Don't know")
16) Is your cooperative contemplating a program to advocate for sustainable practices?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Don't know
Page entry logic: This page will show when: Question "Does your cooperative have its own
program(s) to advocate for sustainable practices?" #14 is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Next we would like to discuss your cooperative's sustainability program.
17) What are the goals of your cooperative’s sustainability program?
18) Please list the reasons your cooperative used to create it sustainability program?
19) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is not important at all and 10 is very important, please rate
how important the following were in your rationale for your sustainability program:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Environmental
reasons
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Economic
profitability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Employee
satisfaction
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Public
perception
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Corporate
responsibility
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Meeting
customer
demands
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Long-term
company
viability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
20) Is your program(s) designed to promote sustainability among your producers or is it
aimed at your cooperative’s operations?
( ) Cooperative operations
( ) Producer operations
( ) Both
( ) Other (please explain): _________________________________________________
21) What challenges have you encountered in implementing your cooperative’s sustainability
program?
22) Please list any factors outside of your cooperative that may be influential to your
sustainability program?
23) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is not influential at all and 10 is very influential, please rate
how influential the following outside factors are to your sustainability program:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Consumer
interest
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Social media
attention
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Regulatory
action
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Buyer
mandates
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Environmental
advocacy
groups
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Market trends
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
24) Please list any benefits your cooperative may receive due to your sustainability program?
25) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is not beneficial at all and 10 is very beneficial, please rate
how beneficial the following are with regard to your cooperative's sustainability program:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Public image
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Consumer
purchases
acceptance
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Co-op
profitability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Environmental
performance
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Compliance
with buyer
mandates
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Long term
stability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
26) In general, how supportive are your members of your cooperative’s sustainability
program?
( ) Very supportive
( ) Somewhat supportive
( ) Somewhat unsupportive
( ) Very unsupportive
( ) Don't know
27) Please describe the impact of your sustainability program on your cooperative and or its
members.
28) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is no impact at all and 10 is significant impact, please rate how
much impact your sustainability program has had on the following:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Public image
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Consumer
purchases
acceptance
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Co-op
profitability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Environmental
performance
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Compliance
with buyer
mandates
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Long term
stability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Return on
investment
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Page entry logic: This page will show when: Question "Does your cooperative have its own
program(s) to advocate for sustainable practices?" #14 is one of the following answers ("No",
"Don't know")
29) Please list any factors outside of your cooperative that may be influential in motivating
you to adopt a sustainability program?
30) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is not influential at all and 10 is very influential, please rate
how influential the following might be in motivating your cooperative to undertake a
sustainability program:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Consumer
interest
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Social media
attention
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Regulatory
action
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Buyer
mandates
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Environmental
advocacy
groups
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Market trends
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
31) Please list any benefits your cooperative may receive if you were to adopt a sustainability
program?
32) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is not beneficial at all and 10 is very beneficial, please rate
how beneficial the following would be if your cooperative adopted a sustainability program:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Public image
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Consumer
purchases
acceptance
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Co-op
profitability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Environmental
performance
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Compliance
with buyer
mandates
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Long term
stability
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
33) Please list any challenges that may stop your cooperative from adopting a sustainability
program?
34) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is not challenging at all and 10 is very challenging, please rate
how challenging the following would be to your cooperative adopting a sustainability
program:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Increased
cost
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Multiple
different
mandates
from
customers
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Increased
staffing
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Unclear
benefits
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Member
interests
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Lastly, we are interested in your views on sustainability going forward.
35) On a scale of 0-10, where 0 is poorly and 10 is excellent, please rate how well your
cooperative helps its producers in each of these areas:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don't
know
Energy
efficiency
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Water
conservation
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Protection
of water
quality
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Land use
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Protection
of air quality
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
36) What additional resources, tools or information would be most helpful in achieving your
cooperative’s sustainability goals?
37) What are the primary opportunities for your cooperative with regard to sustainability?
38) What is the most appropriate service NCFC could offer to support your cooperative’s
sustainability goals?
( ) 1. Develop for you a co-op only (as opposed to on-farm or ranch) sustainability plan
( ) 2. Develop a co-op sustainability plan that would also include plans for producers
( ) 3. Develop materials to help the co-op talk to its members about sustainability
( ) 4. Provide you with top-quality, yet generic written and web-based guidance about how a coop could develop its own sustainability plan, develop such plans for producers, or both
( ) 5. Provide you with an expert in how institutions can develop their own sustainability plan, or
how to develop such plans for producers, or both
( ) 6. Both 4 and 5 above
( ) 7. None of the above
( ) 8. Other (please explain): _________________________________________________
39) What additional guidance would you provide to NCFC as it contemplates its role in
sustainability?
Thank You!
COMMITTEE &
SUBCOMMITTEE
ELECTIONS
Government Affairs Committee
Leadership Positions
2013-2014
Government Affairs Committee
Chair: Rich Hudgins, California Canning Peach Association
Vice Chair: Todd Van Hoose, CoBank
NCFC Staff Contact: Lisa Kelley Van Doren (lvandoren@ncfc.org)
Environment & Energy Subcommittee
Subcommittee Focus: Environmental Regulations, USDA Conservation Programs,
Energy, Climate Change, etc.
Chair: Emily Rooney, Agricultural Council of California
Vice Chair: David Salmen, South Dakota Wheat Growers
NCFC Staff Contact: Lisa Kelley Van Doren (lvandoren@ncfc.org) and Kelsey
Swango (kswango@ncfc.org)
International Affairs Subcommittee
Issue Areas: International Trade, Trade Promotion Authority, Market Access,
Export Programs, SPS Issues, etc.
Chair: Mike Wooton, Sunkist Growers
Vice Chair: Jeana Hultquist, CoBank
NCFC Staff Contact: Kevin Natz (knatz@ncfc.org) and Lisa Kelley Van Doren
(lvandoren@ncfc.org)
Fruit, Veg & Nut Subcommittee
Issue Areas: Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, Specialty Crop Research
Initiative, DOD Fresh, USDA Snack Program, TASC Program, etc.
Chair: Susan Brauner, Blue Diamond Growers
Vice Chair: Bill Frantz, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
NCFC Staff Contact: Kathleen Johnson (kjohnson@ncfc.org) and Lisa Kelley
Van Doren (lvandoren@ncfc.org)
Animal Agriculture Subcommittee
Subcommittee Focus: USDA Dairy Programs, Animal Health, Animal Welfare,
Animal ID, Competition/Packers and Stockyards Act, etc.
Chair: Leon Graves, Dairy Marketing Services
Vice Chair: Wally Knock, South Dakota Wheat Growers
NCFC Staff Contact: Lisa Kelley Van Doren (lvandoren@ncfc.org) and Kelsey
Swango (kswango@ncfc.org)
Labor & Infrastructure Subcommittee
Subcommittee Focus: Immigration, Workplace Safety (OSHA, NLRB),
Transportation, Rural Development, Credit/Finance, Broadband, etc.
Chair: Jackie Klippenstein, Dairy Farmers of America
Vice Chair: Julian Heron, Tuttle, Taylor & Heron
NCFC Staff Contact: Kathleen Johnson (kjohnson@ncfc.org), Kelsey Swango
(kswango@ncfc.org), Kevin Natz (knatz@ncfc.org) and Lisa Kelley Van Doren
(lvandoren@ncfc.org)
Food & Nutrition Subcommittee
Subcommittee Focus: Food Safety, Food Labeling, Nutrition, etc.
Chair: Autumn Veazey, Land O'Lakes, Inc.
Vice Chair: Vaughn Koligian, Sun-Maid Growers of California
NCFC Staff Contact: Kathleen Johnson (kjohnson@ncfc.org) and Lisa Kelley
(lvandoren@ncfc.org)
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
ELECTION BALLOT
The Government Affairs Committee shall elect two of its members to
serve as Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair will serve a
two-year term that coincides with the Congressional cycle. The Chair
and Vice Chair can serve a maximum of two terms (four years).
Nominations will be made by the Committee. Elections will be held
in November and will take effect the following January.
For the term of Office: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2016
Chair: __________________________________________
Vice Chair: _______________________________________
2015 PRIORITIES &
POLICY RESOLUTIONS
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
2014 Priorities &
Policy Resolutions
2 | National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Who we are…
Since 1929, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) has been the voice of America’s farmer
cooperatives. Farmer cooperatives are businesses owned and controlled by farmers, ranchers, and growers.
Cooperatives differ from other businesses because they are member-owned and operated for the benefit of
members.
Farmer cooperatives handle, process, and market almost every type of agricultural commodity; furnish farm
supplies; and provide credit and related financial services, including export financing. Farmer cooperatives
offer the best opportunity for America to realize the farmer-focused ideal of an enduring, competitive
agricultural industry because they allow individual farmers the ability to own and lead organizations
essential for continued competitiveness in both the domestic and international markets.
Through their cooperatives, farmers are able to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve their income from the marketplace
Strengthen their bargaining power
Maintain access to competitive credit sources
Compete effectively in the global economy
Capitalize on new marketplace opportunities, including value-added processing
Manage risk
Access technical assistance and other services
NCFC members are regional and national farmer cooperatives, which in turn are comprised of nearly 3,000
local farmer cooperatives across the country. They contribute to a vibrant rural economy, providing jobs
for over 250,000 Americans. The majority of America’s 2 million farmers and ranchers belong to at least one
farmer cooperative. NCFC members also include 22 state and regional councils of cooperatives.
2014 Priorities & Policy Resolutions | 3
NCFC 2014 Priorities
Numerous legislative and regulatory issues arise during the course of a year, and NCFC will work to ensure
the value of farmer cooperatives is recognized by Congress and the Administration. In 2014, NCFC will focus
its efforts on key priority issues for farmer cooperatives, including:
1. Support the Capper-Volstead Act antitrust protections for farmer cooperatives and protect the rights
of farmers to join or form cooperatives to market their products and improve their income from the
marketplace.
2. Maintain Internal Revenue Code Subchapter T tax provisions for farmer cooperatives and promote
favorable tax treatment for farmer cooperatives.
3. Support legislative and regulatory efforts that promote the Farm Credit System’s unwavering mission
to provide credit and related services to the agricultural sector and rural America.
4. Maintain and promote farmer cooperative eligibility and access under USDA and other federal
programs and initiatives.
5. Maintain support and funding for USDA farm bill programs consistent with NCFC principles and
recommendations.
6. Support immigration reform to meet agriculture’s labor needs and to ensure a dependable supply of
high quality food and fiber.
7. Support modernization of U.S. transportation infrastructure to maintain and enhance U.S.
agriculture’s global competitiveness.
8. Broaden support for enhanced U.S agricultural trade and increased market access.
9. Support efforts to ensure regulations implementing financial regulatory market reforms do not
impair farmer cooperatives’ ability to use and provide essential risk management tools.
10.Support conservation programs and environmental regulations that are locally driven and based
on scientifically and economically sound practices, recognizing the unique nature of farmer
cooperatives and production agriculture.
11.Support efforts to ensure farmer-owned cooperatives, their employees, and the producers they serve
are presented with affordable and varied options as part of any reforms to the nation’s health care
system.
12.Support the development of a comprehensive national energy strategy that meets our nation’s
energy needs and maximizes a role in energy independence for American agriculture and farmer
cooperatives.
13.Support nutrition policy based on sound science and promote healthful consumption of meat, farmraised aquaculture, dairy products, grains, and fruits, vegetables, and nuts, based on their nutritional
value.
14.Support efforts to reduce the climate of uncertainty created by burdensome regulations, including
those that are pending.
As Approved by the NCFC Council, February 13, 2014
4 | National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
NCFC Policy Resolutions
Legal, Tax and Accounting
Background: Farmer-owned cooperatives are central to America’s abundant, safe and affordable food, fuel
and fiber supply. NCFC strongly supports public policy that continues to protect and strengthen the ability
of farmers and ranchers to join together in cooperative efforts to maintain and promote the economic wellbeing of farmers, ensure access to competitive markets, and help capitalize on market opportunities. The
heart of farmer co-op policy lies with the protections afforded by the Capper-Volstead Act’s limited antitrust
immunity for farmers and their cooperatives. Without those protections, many farmer cooperatives would
cease to exist and the farmers and communities they serve would suffer irreparable harm.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Oppose any action that would limit the effectiveness and efficiency of farmer cooperatives and as
such action would harm American agriculture and rural communities, resulting in a less reliable food,
fuel and fiber supply.
2. Maintain Capper-Volstead Act protections and coordinate industry response to recent legal
challenges regarding the scope and applicability of the Act.
3. Maintain Internal Revenue Code Subchapter T tax provisions for farmer cooperatives.
4. Promote tax and accounting policies that allow farmer cooperatives and their members to compete
in today’s challenging marketplace and to pass on their operations to the next generation.
5. Monitor implementation of Uniform Law for Cooperatives.
Farm Credit
Background: The Farm Credit System is a cooperatively-owned network of financial institutions established
by Congress to serve as the reliable supplier of competitively priced credit to U.S. farmers, ranchers,
agricultural cooperatives, rural utilities, and other rural businesses. The cooperative structure of the Farm
Credit System ensures that profits are returned to customer-owners through patronage distributions or are
used to support new, mission-related lending activities.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support initiatives ensuring that the Farm Credit System remains a reliable and competitive source of
credit to farmers, ranchers, and agricultural cooperatives.
2. Support the Agriculture Committees’ continued jurisdiction over the Farm Credit System and
regulatory oversight by the Farm Credit Administration.
3. Support initiatives that promote the ability of farmer cooperatives to offer forward contracts and riskmitigation tools to producers, particularly in times of high crop and crop input prices.
4. Support efforts by the Farm Credit System to modernize its lending authorities to reflect the
changing rural and farm economy, including the development of new generation cooperatives, if
such opportunities arise.
2014 Priorities & Policy Resolutions | 5
Agriculture Policy
Background: NCFC strongly supported passage and implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill to meet the needs
of U.S. producers, ensure the long-term viability, health and competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, and to help
meet domestic and international food, fiber, feed, and energy needs.
Additionally, NCFC is following closely the appropriations process in Congress. Programs that are authorized
but never funded are of no help. Likewise, programs that are deprived during the appropriations process
never reach their full potential.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Maintain and promote farmer cooperative eligibility and access under USDA and other federal
programs and initiatives.
2. Maintain support and funding for USDA farm bill programs consistent with NCFC principles and
recommendations.
3. Support efforts to maintain a budgetary baseline, thus minimizing potential budget cuts, to ensure
adequate funding for policies and programs to meet the needs of U.S. agriculture.
4. Maintain and promote a needed income safety net for producers, while helping to meet the food and
fiber needs of consumers at home and abroad.
5. Support dairy policy that reduces extreme volatility and establishes a viable and effective domestic
safety net for producers with a focus on protecting the operating margin experienced by producers
as reflected by milk price and input costs. Additionally, support efforts to revise Federal Milk
Marketing Orders to promote a pricing system that compensates producers fairly and creates a more
dynamic industry by moving away from end-product pricing formulas and make allowances.
6. Promote improved comprehensive risk management tools and programs for farmers.
7. Support strengthening the specialty crop industry through viable and economical systems that
enhance the value, ensure the safety, and promote consumption of specialty crop products.
8. Maintain and promote needed agricultural research.
9. Support policies that enhance the ability of U.S. farmers to produce food, fuel and fiber using
technologies that are based on proven science, including biotechnology.
10.Support and maintain expanded pest and disease research programs, improved exclusion and
eradication programs, and continue to protect the tools which are vital in these efforts.
11.Support correcting the current imbalance in the specialty crop industry caused by the USDA
Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) which puts specialty crop farmers at a disadvantage.
12.Increase federal funding to protect against the introduction of pests at ports of entry.
As Approved by the NCFC Council, February 13, 2014
6 | National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Animal Agriculture
Background: NCFC supports animal agriculture policies that provide market transparency, reduce
unnecessary government regulations, and increase availability of market information for livestock and
poultry producers. Federal policies must recognize the unique and important role farmer-owned livestock
marketing associations play in the success of American agriculture and in providing farmers the best
opportunity to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace.
NCFC also continues to work with industry partners to improve communications among farmers, ranchers,
processors, food retailers and consumers, helping people better understand the role animal agriculture plays
in providing a safe, abundant food supply.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support strengthening the livestock industry through viable and economical systems that enhance
the value and ensure the safety of animal agriculture products, promoting consumer confidence.
2. Support policies that enhance the ability of cooperative members to raise animals for food and fiber
consistent with best management practices and technologies that are humane and based on proven
science, are economically sound, and that ensure the safety of animal agriculture products.
3. Support policies that promote the responsible use of production practices by producers in order to
maintain the health of their animals and to continue to provide the American consumer with a highquality source of protein.
4. Support policies to enhance business opportunities for livestock and poultry producers as well as
their farmer-owned livestock marketing associations by providing the freedom and flexibility to
engage in new market innovations.
5. Oppose federal policies that negatively impact farmer-owned livestock marketing associations by
limiting the marketing options of the cooperative and its members.
6. Oppose activities and extreme policies that lack basis or scientific evidence and negatively impact
the ability of farmer-owned cooperatives and their producer members to produce a safe and
affordable food supply.
Commodity Derivatives
Background: As processors and marketers of commodities and suppliers of farm inputs, cooperatives are
commercial end-users of over-the-counter derivatives (commodity swaps). Cooperatives use swaps to
effectively minimize risks associated with price movements in commodities, such as grain, dairy products,
livestock, energy, and fertilizer. In addition, swaps give cooperatives the ability to offer customized products
to producers that help them better manage their risk and returns and, provide more predictable profitability.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Promote improved comprehensive risk management tools and programs for farmers.
2. Support efforts to ensure Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations do not impair farmer
cooperatives’ ability to use and provide their members essential risk management tools.
3. Support the development of risk management products to ensure a reliable and affordable supply of
fertilizers and other inputs.
2014 Priorities & Policy Resolutions | 7
Rural Development
Background: Farmer cooperatives have increased their presence in rural communities, and have a
vested interest in the economic well-being of these areas. Federal policies must continue providing rural
communities with the tools necessary to promote economic growth.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Encourage and promote rural development, including through farmer-owned businesses.
2. Strengthen programs to better enable farmers and their cooperatively-owned businesses to
capitalize on new value-added market opportunities.
3. Maintain Value-Added Producer Grants, including farmer cooperative eligibility, and full funding.
4. Ensure USDA’s Cooperative Services is able to meet the needs of our nation’s farmer cooperatives by
providing relevant and timely information, statistics and research in addition to effective program
administration.
Labor and Immigration
Background: The agriculture industry faces unique employment needs and challenges, and the current H-2A
guest worker program is unworkable and cannot be fixed. Production agriculture requires sufficient farm
labor resources in order to continue to supply the nation and the world with high quality food, fiber and fuel.
For production to continue in this country, agriculture must be supported by federal programs that allow
for their labor needs to be met. Federal policies now and in the future must recognize the unique nature of
agricultural work and our international competitiveness issues that require access to a flexible workforce.
Additionally, farm safety is of the highest importance.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support immigration reform that meets the unique needs of all segments of agriculture, in terms of
visa length and addressing agricultural workers currently in the country.
2. Support efforts to ensure that immigration regulation and enforcement procedures, including by
the Department of Homeland Security, do not impose unreasonable costs and over burdensome
obligations on agricultural employers.
3. Oppose Card Check legislation, recognizing that the card check procedure increases the risk of
coercion by removing workers’ ability to cast a secret ballot regarding union organization.
4. Support responsible and cost-effective regulatory policies that provide a safe and productive work
environment while promoting our economic competitiveness. Oppose federal efforts that do not
adequately recognize the diversity of agricultural production and processing.
5. Oppose policies that unnecessarily diminish the ability of young people to seek employment in
agricultural operations and related fields.
6. Farms with 10 or fewer employees should not be regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
As Approved by the NCFC Council, February 13, 2014
8 | National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Energy
Background: NCFC supports an energy policy that maximizes a role for American agriculture and farmer
cooperatives in energy independence. Farmer cooperatives are vital players in this country’s quest
for energy independence and in ensuring that producers are able to capitalize on expanded market
opportunities. Renewable energy sources, along with conservation, are important tools in securing a
more affordable and accessible domestic renewable energy supply.
NCFC encourages passage of a comprehensive energy bill recognizing the contributions of the American
farmer and rancher in the renewable energy industry.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support legislative and regulatory action to meet U.S. and agriculture’s energy needs.
2. Promote expanded development and use of renewable fuels and other energy sources as part of a
competitive energy policy to help meet U.S. agriculture and our nation’s energy needs.
3. Support a consistent and reliable policy of renewable fuels incentives and other provisions
encouraging production of renewable fuels. New approaches to federal investment in the renewable
fuels industry should encourage innovation and market stability.
4. Support voluntary policies promoting the development of technologies to further utilize manure as a
feedstock to produce gas, fuel, or electricity, especially if these projects are cost-effective and provide
an economic benefit to farmers and/or farmer-owned cooperatives.
5. Support the 25 X 25 Initiative calling for 25 percent of total U.S. energy supplies from renewable
resources by 2025.
6. Recognize the importance of, and continuing role for, traditional energy sources, especially for the
agriculture industry and rural America.
7. Promote affordable technology advances for cleaner utilization of fossil-based fuel sources.
Transportation & Infrastructure
Background: Improving our transportation infrastructure must be a national priority deserving urgent
attention – sooner rather than later. Capacity constraints, structurally deficient bridges, deteriorating roads,
and locks and dams long past their expected useful life require our full attention as a nation.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support modernization of U.S. transportation infrastructure to maintain and enhance U.S.
agriculture’s global competitiveness.
2. Support timely reauthorization and full funding of the Water Resources Development Act, including
sufficient funding for the construction of new locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River System.
3. Support improvements in rail capacity, competition, service and accessibility in rural America.
4. Support expansion of key trucking routes on the interstate system.
5. Maintain and expand agricultural hours of service exemption.
6. Pass long-overdue trucking productivity improvements, including increased allowable weights for
hauling agricultural commodities.
7. Support policies that promote the construction of pipelines in the United States to accommodate
increased domestic energy production, improve the reliability and flexibility of our country’s energy
delivery networks and to complement rail lines, highways and waterways.
2014 Priorities & Policy Resolutions | 9
International Trade
Background: NCFC seeks a level playing field for U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace. Market
development and promotion programs are vital to maintaining and expanding U.S. agricultural exports,
countering subsidized foreign competition, protecting American jobs and strengthening farm income.
Accordingly, NCFC supports strong market development and promotion programs in pursuit of increased
agricultural exports and the farm-level benefits they generate.
Additionally, over the past decade, the resources for both FAS and APHIS have come under significant
pressure due to budget issues. This pressure has come at a time when competition in key foreign markets
has only increased. These resources, including personnel and infrastructure, are extremely valuable in
ensuring that overseas markets remain open and efficient for U.S. agricultural exports.
We also recognize a preference for multilateral negotiations, since bilateral agreements can result in
continued market distortions. We note the importance of the three pillar strategy, which includes market
access, domestic supports and export competition, with the key pillar being market access. Our interests
include commodities, processed products, farm supplies, and agricultural inputs.
Policy Resolutions:
1. The U.S. trade remedy law process should be strictly adhered to so as to maintain it as a viable tool
for American agriculture.
2. Market Access
a. Maintain and expand U.S. agriculture exports and global competitiveness, including substantially
improved access to foreign markets.
b. Maintain and strengthen USDA Export Programs and funding; and ensure continuation of the
branded program and current cooperative eligibility in the Market Access Program.
c. Support increased market access for U.S. agriculture exports, including to Cuba.
3. Support enhanced resources for USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in support of U.S. agriculture exports.
4. WTO Trade Negotiation
a. Support elimination of export subsidies.
b. Achieve tariff harmonization. U.S. tariffs on agriculture currently average around 12 percent,
compared to an average of 62 percent for the rest of the world.
c. Provide greater access to meaningful markets in developed and developing countries.
d. Require significant reductions in “trade distorting” domestic supports in all countries and markets.
e. Require net agricultural exporting developing countries to comply with the same disciplines and
consistencies as developed countries.
f. For purposes of multilateral negotiations under the WTO, provide for every agricultural product
and policy to be subject to negotiation. Core disciplines should apply to all products and policies.
g. Preserve the sanitary and phytosanitary code based exclusively on sound scientific principles, and
eliminate other technical barriers to trade applying the same standards.
As Approved by the NCFC Council, February 13, 2014
10 | National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Conservation and the Environment
Background: NCFC is involved with a wide variety of conservation and environmental issues from
implementation of farm bill conservation programs to pesticide registrations to wetlands regulations. While
the issues vary, our principles remain: NCFC believes conservation programs and environmental regulations
should be locally driven and based on scientifically and economically sound practices, and should recognize
the unique nature of farmer cooperatives and production agriculture. Additionally, we work to promote
the value of farmer cooperatives in the context of the growing dialogue about social responsibility and
sustainability.
However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has multiple, aggressive regulatory and
enforcement initiatives underway that ignore the role of states and affect nearly every aspect of U.S.
agriculture. Water quality, air quality, pesticide use, and climate change are all subject to major actions, and
farms and ranches of all sizes can expect to be affected.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Promote environmental stewardship, recognizing the unique role that farmer cooperatives can play
as a part of the delivery system relating to environmental programs.
2. Oppose environmental legislation or regulatory actions that cause adverse impacts to farmer-owned
cooperatives and their farmer members, including increased costs of production, that hinder their
ability to produce food, fuel and fiber for the world.
3. Support full funding for working lands conservation programs, including the Environment Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), in order to maximize conservation program benefits and better achieve
important environmental objectives.
4. Encourage EPA to assist producers with implementation tools and guidelines in order to comply with
the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations.
5. Support efforts to ensure access to critically needed crop protection products for agriculture.
6. Support Endangered Species Act reform.
7. Support efforts to ensure producers participating in cost-share conservation programs can engage in
opportunities in environmental services markets.
8. Support implementation of science-based environmental policies that achieve clean air and clean
water while minimizing cost and regulatory burdens on farmer cooperatives and their member
owners.
9. Oppose expansion of the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act.
Food Safety
Background: America’s farmers and ranchers are committed to providing a safe and affordable food supply
for consumers globally. NCFC urges that any actions by Congress be based on sound science and prudent
risk assessment. American consumers need to have confidence that their food is safe and that the best
science is being used to ensure that the most wholesome products possible.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support food safety legislation and regulations based on sound science, and that are risk-based,
commodity specific, and applied equitably.
2014 Priorities & Policy Resolutions | 11
2. Ensure food safety regulations enhance our nation’s food safety while avoiding negative impacts to
farmer cooperatives and their producer members.
Nutrition & Labeling
Background: A large and increasing number of federal dollars are spent to ensure nutritious food is available
for our nation’s individuals, families, and children who rely on federal nutrition programs. America’s farmers
and ranchers supply the nation and the world with nutritious and wholesome food. NCFC urges that any
actions by Congress to update or change nutrition policy be based on sound science and USDA’s Dietary
Guidelines.
Policy Resolutions:
1. Support USDA food and nutrition programs and the continuation of USDA commodity purchases
using Section 32 funds.
2. Encourage USDA’s food and nutrition programs to provide all forms of fruits, vegetables, and tree
nuts as outlined in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines.
3. Ensure that federal nutrition policy encourages healthful consumption of meat, farm-raised
aquaculture, dairy products, grains, and fruits, vegetables, and nuts, based on sound science.
4. Support the consumption of milk and milk products through federal nutrition programs.
5. Support the use of agricultural production technologies, such as the production and use of
biotechnology, as long as they are proved safe and do not pose a risk to public health.
6. Support legislative efforts to grant federal preemptive authority on all food labeling requirements,
including:
a. the formation of one standardized nutritional labeling system for food labels and grocery store
shelf markers that is based on sound science and criteria that is public and readily available to
consumers, and
b. a clear definition of “all natural.”
7. Oppose state and local food labeling initiatives that conflict with science and increase food costs
without achieving any substantiated benefits.
As Approved by the NCFC Council, February 13, 2014
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
FARMER COOPERATIVES
50 F Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
t: (202) 626-8700 f: (202) 626-8722
CONNECT WITH NCFC AT WWW.NCFC.ORG
Facebook: www.Facebook.com/Farmercoop
Twitter: @FarmerCoop
Flickr: www.flickr.com/people/farmercoop
NCFC CO-OP
PAC REPORT
NCFC CO-OP/PAC REPORT
TO:
NCFC Executive Council
FROM:
NCFC Staff
DATE:
November 6, 2014
The PAC is having another strong show of support from members this year with receipts
totaling $91,010.00 since January 1st. During the two-year fundraising push of the 20132014 election cycle, the PAC has raised $196,695 for members of Congress who sought
reelection to the 114th Congress.
The 3rd Annual Sweepstakes drawing held in conjunction with the Washington
Conference last June raised over $10,000, and had increased individual participation
from previous years. The combined earnings from the Silent Auction and Sweepstakes
drawing have helped raise over $30,000 in addition to separate individual and PAC
contributions throughout the year.
This strong support has allowed the PAC to support 29 members of Congress this year
alone, with combined contributions of $79,000. The contribution report that follows
shows the PAC giving to several members of Congress multiple times throughout the
year. This is a result of many tight races that key members were up against in their
Primary Elections, and faced in their General Elections on November 4. With the record
show of support from our membership the past two years, the PAC had the ability to
show extraordinary support for several key champions of agriculture facing highly
contested races.
Thank you to all who supported the PAC in 2014!
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
January 1 - September 30, 2014
Beginning Balance
$ 15,207.82
Receipts
Contributions from Individuals
$55,510.00
Contributions from Federal PACs
Refunds
Other Receipts
$29,250.00
$
$
$ 84,760.00
Disbursements
Contributions to Federal Candidates
Operating Expenses
Cleared Disbursement from 2012
Refunds
$76,293.33
$ 9,770.51
$
$
$ 86,063.84
Ending Balance
$ 13,903.98
Disbursement List
January 1 – November 4, 2014
Date
Amount
Committee Name
State
Election Period
Party
1/27/2014
$1,000.00
DAVID ROUZER FOR CONGRESS
NC
PRIMARY 2014
R
1/27/2014
$2,000.00
MIKE SIMPSON FOR CONGRESS
ID
PRIMARY 2014
R
1/27/2014
$1,000.00
CHRIS GIBSON FOR CONGRESS
NY
PRIMARY 2014
R
2/26/2014
$1,000.00
MARY LANDRIEU FOR SENATE
LA
PRIMARY 2014
D
3/06/2014
$2,500.00
DAVID ROUZER FOR CONGRESS
NC
PRIMARY 2014
R
3/10/2014
$1,000.00
NICK CASEY FOR CONGRESS
WV
PRIMARY 2014
D
3/12/2014
$2,500.00
RODNEY FOR CONGRESS
IL
PRIMARY 2014
R
3/13/2014
$1,000.00
VOLUNTEERS FOR SHIMKUS
IL
PRIMARY 2014
R
3/27/2014
$1,000.00
TIM WALZ FOR US CONGRESS
MN
PRIMARY 2014
D
4/08/2014
$2,000.00
MIKE SIMPSON FOR CONGRESS
ID
PRIMARY 2014
R
4/08/2014
$2,500.00
MARCIA FUDGE FOR CONGRESS
OH
PRIMARY 2014
D
4/28/2014
$2,500.00
HOEVEN FOR SENATE
ND
PRIMARY 2016
R
4/30/2014
$1,000.00
DONNELLEY FOR INDIANA
IN
PRIMARY 2014
D
5/02/2014
$1,000.00
KURT SCHRADER FOR CONGRESS
OR
PRIMARY 2014
D
5/30/2014
$1,000.00
AUSTIN SCOTT FOR CONGRESS
GA
PRIMARY 2014
R
6/12/2014
$2,500.00
CITIZENS FOR COCHRAN
MS
RUNOFF 2014
R
6/24/2014
$1,000.00
FRIENDS OF CHERI BUSTOS
IL
PRIMARY 2014
D
6/26/2014
$1,000.00
DELBENE FOR CONGRESS
WA
PRIMARY 2014
D
7/14/2014
$2,500.00
DAN NEWHOUSE FOR CONGRESS
WA
PRIMARY 2014
R
7/14/2014
$3,000.00
KLOBUCHAR FOR MINNESOTA
MN
PRIMARY 2018
D
7/14/2014
$3,000.00
VALADAO FOR CONGRESS
CA
GENERAL 2014
R
7/14/2014
$2,500.00
BILL SHUSTER FOR CONGRESS
PA
GENERAL 2014
R
7/15/2014
$1,000.00
BEN SASSE FOR US SENATE INC
NE
GENERAL 2014
R
7/23/2014
$2,500.00
POMPEO FOR CONGRESS INC
KS
PRIMARY 2014
R
7/23/2014
$1,000.00
FRIENDS OF ROY BLUNT
MO
PRIMARY 2016
R
7/23/2014
$2,500.00
PETERSON FOR CONGRESS
MN
GENERAL 2014
D
7/24/2014
$2,500.00
RANDY HULTGREN FOR CONGRESS
IL
GENERAL 2014
R
7/25/2014
$1,500.00
PETERSON FOR CONGRESS
MN
GENERAL 2014
D
7/29/2014
$2,500.00
CONAWAY FOR CONGRESS
TX
GENERAL 2014
R
8/26/2014
$3,000.00
VALADAO FOR CONGRESS
CA
GENERAL 2014
R
9/8/2014
$5,000.00
CITIZENS FOR COCHRAN
MS
GENERAL 2014
R
9/17/2014
$1,000.00
FRIENDS OF FARR
CA
GENERAL 2014
D
9/17/2014
$2,500.00
LOFGREN FOR CONGRESS
CA
GENERAL 2014
D
9/17/2014
$2,500.00
DAN NEWHOUSE FOR CONGRESS
WA
GENERAL 2014
R
9/17/2014
$2,000.00
GIBBS FOR CONGRESS
OH
GENERAL 2014
R
9/17/2014
$5,000.00
LUCAS FOR CONGRESS
OK
GENERAL 2014
R
9/18/2014
$1,000.00
DOUG OSE FOR CONGRESS
CA
GENERAL 2014
R
9/23/2014
$5,000.00
ROBERTS FOR SENATE
KS
GENERAL 2014
R
TOTAL
$79,000.00
Disbursements
January 1 – December 31, 2013
Date
Amount
Committee Name
Election
Period
Party
State
01/29/13
$ 1,000.00
HEIDI FOR SENATE
Primary 2018
Democratic
ND
02/12/13
$ 2,000.00
CITIZENS FOR COCHRAN
Primary 2014
Republican
VA
02/12/13
$ 1,000.00
RODNEY FOR CONGRESS
Other 2012
Republican
IL
02/12/13
$ 1,000.00
FRIENDS OF DICK DURBIN COMMITTEE
Primary 2014
Democratic
IL
02/13/13
$ 3,000.00
CITIZENS FOR COCHRAN
Primary 2014
Republican
VA
02/13/13
$ 2,500.00
MIKE THOMPSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
CA
02/26/13
$ 1,500.00
PETERSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
MN
02/26/13
$ 1,500.00
FRIENDS OF ROY BLUNT
Primary 2016
Republican
MO
02/26/13
$ 1,000.00
CRAWFORD FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
AR
03/05/13
$ 1,000.00
MARCO RUBIO FOR US SENATE
Primary 2016
Republican
FL
03/13/13
$ 2,000.00
MIKE THOMPSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
CA
03/13/13
$ 2,000.00
GIBBS FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
OH
03/13/13
$ 1,000.00
DENHAM FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
VA
03/18/13
$ 1,000.00
RIBBLE FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
WI
03/19/13
$ 2,500.00
VOTETIPTON.COM
Primary 2014
Republican
CO
03/19/13
$
500.00
MIKE THOMPSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
CA
03/19/13
$ 1,000.00
STEVE FINCHER FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
TN
03/19/13
$ 2,000.00
KRISTI FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
SD
03/19/13
$ 2,000.00
GOODLATTE FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
VA
03/19/13
$
MIKE THOMPSON FOR CONGRESS
General 2014
Democratic
CA
04/22/13
$ 4,000.00
JIM COSTA FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
CA
05/07/13
$ 1,000.00
SOUTHERLAND FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
FL
05/15/13
$ 1,000.00
MIKE SIMPSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
ID
05/15/13
$ 1,000.00
BLAINE FOR CONGRESS 2014
Primary 2014
Republican
MO
05/21/13
$ 1,500.00
PETERSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
MN
06/03/13
$ 1,000.00
DOUG LAMALFA COMMITTEE
Primary 2014
Republican
CA
06/03/13
$ 1,000.00
VALADAO FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
CA
06/13/13
$ 1,000.00
RAUL LABRADOR FOR IDAHO
Primary 2014
Republican
ID
500.00
06/13/13
$ 1,000.00
ADRIAN SMITH FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
NE
06/13/13
$ 3,000.00
LUCAS FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
OK
06/18/13
$ 1,000.00
COURTNEY FOR CONGRESS
Convention 2014
Democratic
CT
07/01/13
$ 1,000.00
FRIENDS OF CHERI BUSTOS
Primary 2014
Democratic
IL
07/18/13
$ 1,000.00
HOYER FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
MD
07/18/13
$ 1,000.00
DELBENE FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
WA
07/23/13
$ 2,500.00
CANTOR FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
VA
07/24/13
$ 2,000.00
PETERSON FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
MN
07/31/13
$ 1,000.00
FRIENDS OF FARR
Primary 2014
Democratic
CA
07/31/13
$ 2,000.00
CRAWFORD FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
AR
08/08/13
$ 1,000.00
MARIO DIAZ-BALLART FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
FL
08/26/13
$ 1,000.00
HOOSIERS FOR ROKITA, INC.
Primary 2014
Republican
IN
09/09/13
$ 2,500.00
STEVE FINCHER FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
TN
09/09/13
$ 2,500.00
KURT SCHRADER FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democratic
OR
09/09/13
$ 2,500.00
BOEHNER FOR SPEAKER
Primary 2014
Republican
OH
09/17/13
$ 2,500.00
RANDY HULTGREN FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
IL
09/17/13
$ 2,500.00
CONAWAY FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
TX
09/17/13
$ 2,000.00
GRAVES FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
MO
09/17/13
$ 2,500.00
DENHAM FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
CA
10/01/13
$ 5,000.00
LOFGREN FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democrat
CA
10/28/13
$ 1,000.00
NOLAN FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democrat
MN
10/29/13
$ 1,000.00
MARK PRYOR FOR US SENATE
Primary 2014
Democrat
AR
10/29/13
$ 1,000.00
RIBBLE FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
WI
11/18/13
$ 1,000.00
BENNET FOR COLORADO
Primary 2014
Democrat
CO
11/19/13
$ 1,000.00
FRIENDS OF BENNIE THOMPSON
Primary 2014
Democrat
MS
11/19/13
$ 1,000.00
PETERSON FOR CONGRESS
General 2014
Democrat
MN
11/19/13
$ 1,000.00
DELBENE FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democrat
WA
11/19/13
$ 1,000.00
DEVIN NUNES FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
CA
11/25/13
$ 2,500.00
BILL SHUSTER FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
PA
12/11/13
$ 1,000.00
BILL OWENS FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Democrat
NY
12/11/13
$ 2,000.00
RODNEY FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
IL
12/11/13
$ 1,000.00
BLAINE FOR CONGRESS
Primary 2014
Republican
MO
TOTAL
$ 95,500.00
SUPPORT THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
NCFC is the ONLY trade association organized and dedicated to
represent and promote the interests of America’s farmer-owned cooperatives!
YOU CAN NOW JOIN NCFC AS AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
IN ADDITION TO YOUR COOPERATIVE FOR JUST $25 ANNUALLY
When you join NCFC you gain a powerful voice on issues affecting your business. Individual membership
allows participation in exclusive events at the Annual Meeting and Washington Conference, including NCFC
CO-OP/PAC auction and sweepstakes events. As a member, you will receive NCFC’s weekly e-newsletter -the NCFC Update -- which is sent out every Friday and recaps the important events happening here in
Washington and across the country pertaining to farmer cooperatives. Additionally, you will receive the NCFC
Annual Report, updates on legislative and regulatory issues, and advance notice of NCFC meetings and
events. To be eligible for individual membership, you must be an employee, director or farmer-member of an
NCFC member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------___ YES! I WANT TO SUPPORT NCFC AS AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
(You must be an Employee, Director or Farmer Member of an NCFC Member Organization)
Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Title: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Organization: _____________________________________________________________________________
Address: __________________________________________________________________________________
City: ___________________________________________
Phone: ___________________________
Type of Payment (Check One):
State: _______ ZIP: __________________
Email: ____________________________________________
___ Personal
Check
____ MasterCard
____ VISA
Amount to be charged: $25.00
Credit Card Number: ______________________________________ Date of Expiration: ____/_____
Signature:
Date:
Check Here if You Prefer to be Invoiced: ______
Return to: National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
50 F St. NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Fax: (202) 626-8722
/
/
NCFC STAFF LIST
Tel: 202-626-8700
Fax: 202-626-8722
50 F Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
www.ncfc.org
NCFC Staff Issues List
Marlis Carson, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Legal, Tax & Accounting, (mcarson@ncfc.org)
Policy Areas:
• Capper-Volstead
• Tax
• Accounting/Finance
• Concentration/Competition
• General legal
Lisa Kelley Van Doren, Vice President & Chief of Staff, Government Affairs, (lvandoren@ncfc.org)
Policy Areas:
• Farm Bill (lead staff)
• Farm Commodities
• Crop Insurance
• Conservation & Environmental
• Appropriations/Budget
Kevin Natz, Vice President, Government Affairs, (knatz@ncfc.org)
Policy Areas:
• International Trade
• Risk Management (CFTC)
• Credit
• Rural Development
• Transportation
• Pension
Kathleen Johnson, Director, Government Affairs (kjohnson@ncfc.org)
Policy Areas:
• Immigration
• Specialty Crops
• Nutrition
• Food Safety
• Food Labeling
• Research
Kelsey Swango, Director, Government Affairs & PAC Treasurer, NCFC CO-OP/PAC (kswango@ncfc.org)
Policy Areas:
• Sustainability
• Biotechnology
• Energy
• Labor & Workplace Safety
• Health Care
• DHS Chemical Security
• Livestock
• Lobby Disclosure Compliance
FUTURE MEETINGS
April 23 – 24
June 22 – 24
September 23 – 25
September 30 – October 1
Executive Council
Washington Conference
LTA Subcommittee
Chairs-Vice Chairs
Executive Council
Annual Meeting
February 15 – 17
June 13 – 15
Washington Conference
2017
February 10 – 12
Annual Meeting
2016
February 11 – 13
Annual Meeting
2015
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Washington, DC
Phoenix, AZ
Washington, DC
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
San Diego, CA
NCFC Future Meetings Schedule
Marriott Harbor
Beach
Hyatt Regency
Westin Kierland
NCFC Office
The Edgewater
Hyatt Regency
NCFC Office
Paradise Point
NOTES
NOTES
NOTES
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
50 F Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001
t: (202) 626-8700
f: (202) 626-8722
www.ncfc.org
Facebook: www.Facebook.com/Farmercoop
Twitter: @FarmerCoop
Flickr: www.flickr.com/people/farmercoop