Page 9

Render_Feb17

One of perhaps the most disconcerƟng public posiƟons taken by the Trump administraƟon is what agriculture generally sees as anƟpathy toward globalizaƟon broadly and trade specifically. Trump has pledged to formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), but has said he is open to improving the treaty. He also wants to renegoƟate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or withdraw from the three-naƟon trade deal under its ArƟcle 2205. TPP was the whipping boy of bad mulƟnaƟon trade pacts during the campaign. Trump did not like it, Hillary Clinton did not like it, and parƟsan players in both parƟes did not like it because their party leaders did not like it. Trump’s NAFTA declaraƟon – “the worst trade deal the US ever signed” – was generally lost on the public at large. However, both Canada and Mexico have acknowledged a willingness to talk about NAFTA. Mexico parƟcularly has changed its tune from an earlyon “heck no” to a “let us talk about these things,” predicated, insiders say, on US companies cancelling plans to build faciliƟes in Mexico, talk of a border tax, and a falling peso. Beginning on November 9, agriculture groups took no chances that their pro-trade message might get lost in the rush of Trump’s first 100 days. LeƩers of every stripe circulated around Washington, DC, hammering home to the Trump White House the importance of trade to the growth of domesƟc agriculture. One leƩer sought to cast NAFTA in a more realisƟc, less poliƟcal light: “The importance of trade to America’s farmers and ranchers cannot be overstated. The share of US agricultural producƟon exported overseas is 20 Continued on page 9 We make you look smart. power plants, EPA’s seriously confused smog/ozone rule, an unnecessary rewrite of federal overƟme rules, and other rulemakings scaƩered across the federal government. For itself, Congress is also aggressively pursuing its pledge to liŌ the federal regulatory burden off the backs of American businesses and entrepreneurs. In the first week of the 115th Congress, which began January 3, 2017, the House, under its banner of a “beƩer way” to govern, approved by a vote of 237 to 187 the RegulaƟons from the ExecuƟve in Need of ScruƟny (REINS) Act. This is an ambiƟous rewrite of the way the execuƟve branch promulgates regulaƟons, including requiring congressional approval for any rule with a price tag to regulated industry of $100 million or more – a so-called major rule – but limiƟng congressional review of any pending qualifying regulaƟon to the second and fourth Thursday of each month (seriously). In a second round of its rush to regulatory reform, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) Ɵed the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) to the REINS Act. The RAA requires federal agencies to choose “the least costly opƟon” when regulaƟng unless an agency can demonstrate a pricier rulemaking is needed to protect the public. Ryan raised eyebrows when he reported at a press briefing that the Obama administraƟon promulgated nearly $1 trillion in rulemakings – 4,432 rules – during its eight years and those rules required 754 million hours of paperwork by regulated industry to comply. Ryan said the cost of “midnight rules,” those published by the administraƟon in the last days of Obama’s term, carried a $6 billion price tag and that most, if not all, of those rules will disappear during the infamous first 100 days. 9JGPQWOCMGCIQQFƂPCPEKCNFGEKUKQPHQTQWTEQORCPQWNQQMUOCTV9JGPCIQQF ƂPCPEKCNFGEKUKQPKORTQXGUQWTEQORCPQWNQQMDTKNNKCPV5CHG0CVWTG™CPF'ZVGPF1:® CPVKQZKFCPVURTQXKFGKORTQXGFQZKFCVKQPRGTHQTOCPEG 2815+YKVJNGUUGZRGPUG+OCIKPG RCKPINGUUCPFIGVVKPIOQTG9KVJ(QQFUCHGNGUUKUOQTG brought to you by Visit us at foodsafetechnologies.com …(QQF5CHG6GEJPQNQIKGU#NNTKIJVUTGUGTXGF www.rendermagazine.com Render February 2017 7


Render_Feb17
To see the actual publication please follow the link above