PoliticsAside
PoliticsAside
PoliticsAside: Unearthing the Impact of the Farm Bill - A Conversation with Ted McKinney
Earlier this month Congressman Porter had the opportunity to sit down with Ted McKinney, the former Under Secretary at the US Department of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, and now the CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. They discussed the complexities of the Farm Bill and its direct impact on families, businesses, and communities across the US. From funding various food services to agricultural projects and nutrition programs - the Farm Bill plays a pivotal role in ensuring food safety and availability to all Americans.
the Politics Society. I appreciate you joining us today. There's a whole lot going on in Washington DC and across the nation and certainly around the world, but here in DC there's a lot of major bills that have to be addressed and taken care of in the short run. One of those is the Farm Bill. It's the most substantial funding of food services, farming and, amongst others projects in the US budget and it needs to be reauthorized in 2023, which is today. Technically, they only have a few more weeks to approve the Farm Bill or whatever they're going to do. But before we get into the Farm Bill, we do have a very special guest today to talk about the nuances and what it really means to families and moms and dads and businesses across the country. But I want to share a little bit with the audience.
Speaker 1:I think many of you may know that I had the pleasure of growing up in a small town in Iowa Humboldt, iowa spent a good number of my years in Iowa and in the city. So I'm just setting the stage and I think our guests may appreciate this comment. I remember for years hearing we don't need farmers because we buy our groceries that safe way or at the grocery store and to this day, I don't think people really understand the benefits and the advantages we have in the US and that we can purchase groceries, we can make sure they're safe and make sure they're available to all walks of life in the country. But there are steps that have to take place to make sure it's safe and secure, and that is the Farm Bill, which is, as I mentioned earlier, is being considered here over the next few weeks. But let's talk about it. What else Congress is having to deal with? As you know, there's about 31 days left in Congress to be in session as of today, about 31 actual legislative days.
Speaker 1:There are critical issues that have to be addressed by Congress before the end of September and before the end of the year, but to include not only the Farm Bill. There's FAA reauthorization, there's funding for Ukraine. What will happen with that as we speak. Tragedy in Florida, with the hurricane. We have wildfire support that may help. There are a number of other issues that are also percolating literally to the top of the agenda here in Washington DC, but, as I mentioned, one of the most important bills, that is the Farm Bill and again, we hear a lot about all these other crises and we hear about all these other items that are facing Congress, but the Farm Bill in 2018 was $458 billion. 70 plus percent of that is for food and nutrition programs, from schools to helping the individuals in need help the most, to safety and security, from restaurants to everything in the food chain and that, of course, includes the producers, the businesses that are involved but, more importantly, for the safety and the security of individuals across the country.
Speaker 1:With only a few days left to Congress, I really thought, at least in the September timeframe, I thought it was really important to bring in an intro. As you know, with politics aside, my goal is to have a very frank conversation with friends and national leaders and international leaders that I feel are really playing a major role in our government, in our businesses, in our families, and that certainly starts right at the top. So today we have a very special guest, ted McKinney. He's a former Under Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture and with a specialty in trade and foreign agricultural affairs. Ted, we could talk about that one for hours as well, but let me continue. Also, he was honored to be the Indiana State Department of Ag Director. Spent 19 years with Dow Chemical, 14 years with a subsidiary of Eli.
Speaker 1:Lilly and currently a very important role as CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. So with that, Ted, what's happening? Why is the farm bill important? Can you just give us your perspective on what it means, and especially what it means if it doesn't pass in the next four weeks? Sure.
Speaker 2:Well, john, first, thanks for having me on. I love these kind of podcasts. I've got family members daughter, son-in-law very active in the podcasting area, so what a great way to communicate the message. So, thank you, farm Bill, you're right. Every few years supposed to be four or five years it rolls around and in many ways, every time we see there's a tussle, you know there's the discussion, there's people on different sides of issues, but I would say, in the spirit of ag, more often than not it comes together because it's all about food and it's about farmers and it's about feeding people. And so I'd like to hope that this will be as reasonably civil as I think we've seen in the past, recognizing that there is some, sometimes contention. The first thing I'd say about the Farm Bill is we have got to keep it unified, meaning the farm-oriented parts of the Farm Bill things like insurance and reference prices and price supports when needed, and all of that have got to remain married up with the SNAP women, infants and children and the feeding part. Some call it the unholy alliance, some call it the holy alliance, but I think keeping those together really does do a lot of good for all persons who benefit from the Farm Bill. So that's the first point I'd make. Then you quickly get into the various titles of the Farm Bill.
Speaker 2:Setting aside for just a moment what NASDA would like to see, I think that as an agriculturist, as a farmer, as a long-time observer and participant in Farm Bill, we've got to make sure that we do right by feeding people and we have to do right by keeping those basic support mechanisms for farmers. And that starts with insurance. What a great contribution. I have used the insurance aspect many times around the world. When people accuse the US of unfairly supporting its farmers too much, gosh, we're dwarfed by places like Europe, so I'll defend that all day long. But the fact that our farmers put their own money into the insurance title and the insurance portion is very important.
Speaker 2:I would follow that by. We've got to get the right reference prices. You've got to keep up with what the markets are saying, what the markets are doing, otherwise what's the use? So I think those are a couple of things we've got to do and even though NASDA will not be first up to the dais first at the microphone in support of the commodity titles, we're certainly right there. At second, we think, the commodity groups that look after and own those particular commodities need to be first, and we respect them, we're good friends with them, we support them, but we don't mind and are oftentimes right there second, at the microphone, in support of those, because that's at the core of farming.
Speaker 2:And then you get to all the other things that are really important to all of us but particularly important to us Trade, research, animal disease and support for prevents to those are just a few of those that we'd like to see get some support. It seems like they are oftentimes 11th out of 10, 6th out of 5, you know they're always the Johnny come lately, the bridesmaid not the bride, the groomsman not the groom, and we hope there's a little room for that, although it's looking down a couple, given how much money got chucked in as a result of the IRA and other expenditures these last two or three years. I think the best of intentions were with those, but I think they've really fouled up a traditional farm bill process, like I think most of us would have liked to have seen.
Speaker 1:Well, on that subject, the term reauthorization is used in really not that frequently. There are key pieces of legislation that in fact say reauthorization. So, with the importance of all the areas that you mentioned, what does that really mean to reauthorize something like the farm bill?
Speaker 2:Well, I like the word because it implies that there is something coming that we've got to get to the next phase. So I'll accept the word, although reauthorization and the deadlines given more often than not slip what I clearly. We've heard from all of leadership that September 30th, the designated deadline will not be achieved. Then it's depending on who you talk to. I've heard late 2023. I've heard more people than not speak to a Q1 2024. That would be a January through March thing. And you have heard some, and maybe they're realists, Maybe not.
Speaker 2:But if we cannot come together, people, or even a few of them, are saying it'll be after the election next year and we cannot go that long. Oh, my goodness, I hope we do not go that long because unfortunately many people out there that don't know the farm bill machinations would say, oh gosh, nothing stops. You just authorize it on a temporary basis. Let me just tell you, as someone who's observed it there's a lot that stops. All planning stops, All planning stops. Uncertainty rises exponentially, and so the uncertainty of whether organizations like ours that have some foreign ag service monies, market access program monies for our small and mid-sized companies, you cannot plan. Many cases, farmers cannot plan. So we really do want and need for it to get there, Not to mention the very needy that are receiving SNAP and women, infants and children school feeding type programs. There's a lot of uncertainty there, so we do hope it'll come together.
Speaker 2:I could speak to both sides of it as I look at it as a reality. On the positive side, we know that Senator Stabenow this is her swan song. She is a diehard support of the farm bill. We all want to get that along with her, not for her but with her. So there's that, and those that know the farm bill know the certainties that come when you get a farm bill passed. So we do hope that we can get on with that.
Speaker 2:We know that the chair of the House Ag Committee we've heard the speaker of the House speak very favorably toward getting it done. It's the only big bill that we're hearing about, so there's a lot to say about getting it done. On the other side, you've got folks that are saying and I understand why there is such a pent up frustration with all of the spending these last two, three years, and I understand why Republicans are saying we got to stop the runaway spending. I understand that. So somewhere in that gommish that's a very scientific word, John. In that gommish we've got to find the way and the timing to get a farm bill passed. So I think that's the larger view that I'm hearing from many and, I think, shared by some of our members as well in the States.
Speaker 1:So the tools that are available for Congress and when I say Congress is the House, and the tools available let's say October 1 shows under they would need a CR to carry it to a certain amount of time. A resolution tell, maybe tell the end of the year, or tell the first part of December. And then what happens with the debt ceiling? How does it fit into all this, ted? What does that mean to the outcome of a CR or not funding the government at all?
Speaker 2:Well, back to my scientific word, gamish. This is delicate because I don't want to be a critic of all those things. Let's just speak of the IRA and the climate smart programs that pulled from the commodity credit corporation. There's a lot that agriculture likes there. I'm a fan as long as government is ceding this money SED ceding this money to get things started. But I hope the government gets the hell out of it and it's turned over to others, like the corporate community, that may need offsets Because there was an enormous expenditure there and I think that has caused some disruption in the traditional farm bill process.
Speaker 2:So the hand wringing of do we roll that into the farm bill and keep it? I think that's the prevailing wisdom. Well, that use that likely means there's not any room for other spending. So for those of us that would love to see a doubling of the market access program, which benefits all commodities, benefits everybody, it's 20 years overdue. We've got countries. French wines are getting 5x what our wines are, not to mention the values of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton the staple items that are so important to the world. So it's caused disruption. So it is where it is. We are where we are.
Speaker 2:I just hope that we can come together and find some constraints on runaway spending post COVID. And yes, that probably means some of the snap benefits. I'll cite my own daughter and son-in-law, I mean some of the funding they got from COVID, all at a time when they're financially reasonably well off and even got an extra 6,000 per child for the purposes of having children. I don't understand that, but I think we have got to rein in some of that and get back to some sense of normality and I hope, hope, hope that we can restore the farm bill to its very bipartisan, very productive, meaningful methodologies. Now I haven't answered your question about debt ceiling, but we have a far right and a far left that seem not to come together and we've sort of eaten our own.
Speaker 2:Young, no matter what party you're in the middle, is gone or fading, and so you have these standoffs. Swords are drawn, pistols are drawn and you know people are daring each other to take the next step forward. We got to get away from that and find a way to come together. I think they will. Farm bills, too important. The feeding programs, the farm programs too important. The delays just cause such uncertainty and hand wringing that we don't need so somewhere, somehow, we will find a way and I think those things like farm insurance, commodity titles, snap wick, those will be at the fore with the hopes that maybe we can do a little bit to restore worn out, tired labs that are hardly used, bring back some market access funds and get some sense of trade going again. Those would be my hopes, john.
Speaker 1:Let me talk about your authority for a moment and again, my appreciation and my compliments for your service as an undersecretary that is an undertaking unto itself. And then, of course, your experience in Indiana, your experience in the private sector, and you have your charged as the CEO of NASDA to bring different groups together. You have elected Department of Ag leaders and some that are appointed correct and, that being the case, explain how you have become really the voice. Nasda has become the voice of the states.
Speaker 2:I'd be happy to. Well, I'm very blessed. I came to know NASDA in 1994 and have stayed reasonably close, even as a board member when I was serving in the State Department of Agrol. So it's an organization I love and when the opportunity came to apply a surprise to me, by the way I took it. And here we are. So I'm a blessed person and I know that we're very fortunate and I hearken to the love of agriculture that brings disparate or sometimes disparate groups together. John, it's remarkable.
Speaker 2:Any one of our meetings pick a meeting. It's hard to tell their political strikes when people come in. We have 13 states that are elected. Most of those are southern states. North Dakota and Iowa in the northern states are elected and we have the rest are appointed and they carry the title commissioner, secretary or director. I was a director in Indiana and those are oftentimes appointed by a governor and both systems can work. But when it comes to ag we really come together. There are sometimes things that are different but they're fairly quickly resolved and for that I'm thankful. And maybe it's a demonstration that People on different sides of a political aisle that are appointed can come together because we do an agriculture. I think is that rally cry, that reason we can come together.
Speaker 2:Our members would say just exactly what I've said. I think they are supportive of insurance and the commodity titles because that is what directly affects the farmer, and many of them have programs that support those who are hungry. So they're supportive of the farm to school farm, to food bank farm, to Other kinds of programs, as they are snap, and so they provide that very balanced view. So they're supportive of all. I think they probably start with the farmer in Rancher that's where the farm bill started, it's why it's called farm bill and they're not disrespectful or disregarding the needs of those who are hungry. But I think they see a runaway train where we seem to want to Feed children morning, mid morning, lunch, after school, weekends and oh, by the way, while you're at it, let's feed mom and dad and siblings as well. That's not what those programs were designed to do. So, to the degree that we cannot cause strife in a family but get some kids fed and have some protein so they can stay awake, we're all in.
Speaker 2:I was very active in the private sector, just as a personal private citizen doing a lot of that. So we do come together and that's why we have some priorities that get at supporting insurance and commodity titles, but we go to other things. We are seeing laboratories at state departments of ag and universities antiquated, almost have to step out of them, and no corpus. You know alumni giving only goes so far. You know ag has to fight with engineering, has to fight with computer labs and all those others. So there is something to say about universities giving of their own, but I think they do so. I think it's time we get research out of that 11th of 10 category and into the funding Market access program.
Speaker 2:You heard me say trade. My gosh, we have given up on trade. We have got to get back in there. You know, 20% of a farmer's income comes from exports in soybeans. Two out of three rows of soybeans are exported. My goodness, this is at the core If we don't defend disease and foreign disease and manage high path, the Indian flu and poultry, and the worst come God help us if it ever arrives at our shores is African swine fever. We're not prepared yet, though there has been a lot of good work there by the states and the federal alike, good partnership. These are the things we've got to look hard at and that's why a balance and not just drawing a line of sand that said, if you talk about snap cuts, you're dead on arrival. Come on, stop that. Just as I think some farm programs have got to say look, we can be flexible, but it's got to be it's got to be two to tango, it's got to be two that come together to meet those needs.
Speaker 1:Those would be my fault. You mentioned the international side of this and I guess probably is controversial as any areas within those trade and terms. I know you've spent a lot of time in that field, so can you give us kind of an update on what's happening in that?
Speaker 2:area. Sure, well, populism around the world is on the rise and I understand that. It's easy to speak to a divided electorate when people over by saying you're first, you're first, you're first. Well, I get that and there's truth to that. We do want to take care of our own, but the way we take care of our own is, in part, by exports. I looked to 2008 when so many countries put export controls on a lot of their commodities, meaning they said we're not export thing, we're going to make sure our people are fed. Oh my gosh, prices went through the roof. Starvation set in in many of those trading countries and the world was worse off for it. We cannot do that.
Speaker 2:In my own case, I understood why President Trump spoke about America first and make America great again. I understood that Others use different words, but they say similar things. I get that, but I'll tell you you can have them say that on the campaign trail. But I'm glad that I was supported by President Trump, secretary Perdue, vice President Pence, when I went out and said I am here to work as hard for you in pick the state or the country I'm in as I hope you'll work for me. Trade works and it's essential. There are things that come to trade and we've got to get off this populist kick and get back to the reality of the importance of trade. I mean, heck, back in the feudal times, sons and daughters of fiefdoms married each other to make sure that they could trade and keep the peace. I mean, you know, this is not a new thing.
Speaker 1:Because, ted, it is a part of Homeland Security. When we're talking about trade care, it fits into protecting and developing nations as well.
Speaker 2:Oh, food security is country security. I'd rather talk butter than guns, and they both play into a country's security. So I think there's an opportunity and we just have to get past some of this populism this I can out, shout out, speak somebody about all the things I'm going to do for my own country and remind each other the trade is a big part of lifting up one's brother and sister in our states and in our country. It is really a benefit.
Speaker 1:So on. There, I guess the reverse of that and I'm honored to serve the state of Nevada for many years there's a whole lot of public and I don't know if I should go, because a lot of people think public lands are state parks somewhere in Iowa. But public lands are all different things, but in comparison, or, I guess, in parallel, an area that we hear a lot about is foreign ownership. Yes, foreign land ownership in the US. So what's, what are you hearing in that arena?
Speaker 2:Well, john, I'm hearing a lot and different states have different approaches to this. So I'm hearing everything from no foreign ownership of land period to the more moderate slightly more moderate, for particular countries may not be allowed to purchase land. The next gradation would be limited purchase. You know there's a recognition that foreign countries or corporations in foreign countries own manufacturing sites. That's a good thing, that's direct foreign investment here and you just would limit how much they can expand their footprint to to the most logical, the most conservative approach, which is no foreign ownership around sensitive military bases, satellite kind of operations, chip making facilities, all the really really ultra country security specific things. So we've seen it all.
Speaker 2:I happen to fall down personally on one that said I think some constraints on foreign ownership is in order, but it's got to be contained because you know there's a tit for tat scheme. If that's what we decide, then the reverse is going to be bestowed upon our corporations in other countries. You know I cite a state that had a Dutch family that was looking to expand a dairy. Well, the law said no foreign ownership. My goodness, the Dutch have brought so much to dairy expertise and technology that that kind of seemed a little odd to me. I don't think the US citizens have cornered the market on how to do all that.
Speaker 2:You know, I think we are richer because of all of our diversities, so I think most would say, yes, there should be some restrictions, particularly in sensitive areas, but let's be careful how far we go on this, and I'll also remind some of your listeners that there is not a lot of Chinese ownership, north Korea ownership, iranian ownership, russian ownership of farmland and the like. It's not that much. Let's watch it. Let's not get carried away. That, though, is what I would say.
Speaker 1:So is there ownership with some of our transportation hubs by foreign interest, such as our airports or waterway ports? Is there ownership there?
Speaker 2:There are. There are I couldn't cite which ones, but there are some and I think there are some really commanding leadership by other countries in some construction. I mean, the reason President Trump took some people to the woodshed and put tariffs on steel aluminum is because China in particular, was quadrupling down in their subsidies of their own steel manufacturing and they've driven they have actually driven other countries out of the steel producing business. We were down to very few profitable steel making operations in the US, one of them in my state of Indiana, up near Gary, indiana. So there's a reason to be watching. That we are very, very weak and limited in our shipbuilding capacity Might be something we ought to look at. So there's some value in this discussion of on-shoring.
Speaker 2:We pushed way too many pharmaceuticals into China and other countries. I don't say pull out entirely, but we better be basic in some of these really, really critical things, and so in that sense, I think it's wise that we're having these discussions, but, once again, usually something in the middle is the wisest resolution, not a draconian. Far to one side or far to the other is where I think we've got to go, and that goes for farmland, but, more importantly, land that could allow a manufacturing plant may be owned by a foreign company to expand Ports. We better be careful. We better be careful.
Speaker 1:Well, ted, you provide that thoughtful middle of your organization and all of your members representing the different states, different interests, but coming together is unusual. What would you? And we're running out of time and I appreciate all the time you've given us, so I just a couple more questions. One, what would you suggest to our viewers, our listeners, to how to get engaged and seeing that there's the thoughtful process of passing upon those or some thoughts you could share?
Speaker 2:I do have one. Well, I think it starts with just your own family. You know you better. We had that discussion. We had those kind of discussions as I was growing up and I benefited from that thought and fortunately my mom and dad were not so draconian that there was one view and only one view. It was an open dialogue and I learned from that. So I hope it starts with the family. If you're an agriculture, let's just say farming I think the commodity groups and farm bureau and all the organizations like that are just a haven, great opportunities for learning and contributing and making thoughts well known. So I think those because that's where policies are taken All those organizations roll up to a national and sometimes an international organization. So I would say those are very, very valuable.
Speaker 1:And I'm always been a service and, as you note, I am Senate Russell office building right now and it's not unusual to see different groups from around the country that are here visiting their members of Congress, the future farmers of America and, as you mentioned, the farm bureau organizations, and I am such a fan of having individuals come here and visit with policymakers, but also to visit their district offices right In the different states, and sometimes we forget. Well, we just need to go to Washington. No, it's important that you come, it's important to be here and express your opinion and I think that, with your leadership and as I think it's setting the stage for thoughtful discussion and, of course, passage, but with the clock running, one last question what keeps you up at night, ted? What is the? I know you've got a dozen, dozen, dozen years of your being. Attention to that. What keeps you up at night? The number one thing.
Speaker 2:Well, I think there's two. One is domestic, one is international, domestic. I, it's easy to say, I wish some of our folks would come together. It seems like we've politicized it and we've done it to ourselves. We've taken that middle out so that you're far right or you're far left, seemingly at least. Those are the most shrill, and I just think that if we would, would sit down and have dialogue, and I'm seeing some of the TV shows bringing people of different parties together and show how they are communicating.
Speaker 2:I wish that the electric wouldn't take people to task if they, if they stay or even have their home in Washington. That's how you get to know your fellow congressmen and senators. But no, no, in elections we beat people up if they're not back in the district every weekend, and so I think there's a blend there, so things like that. But mostly I think we just all have to say you know what? I am not so staunch in my views that I can't hear someone else out. I may not agree with them, but maybe there's some nugget I can take and and treat it that way, and I think being civil and being humanitarians is what we can do, and there's none better than ag to rally people together around a table somewhere.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. And I guess the conclusion is I open by saying coming from Iowa, people used to say we don't need the farmers, we go to safely. Well, we need this whole system to work and to be in place to provide security food security, but also for the protection. So we, yes, we need the farmers, yes, we need, we need the families and we need your leadership. So, ted, thank you very much for your time today, thanks for joining politics aside, and look forward to seeing you very soon. Thank you very much. Thank you, my pleasure.
