Delegates attending the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual resolutions session updated several policies and went into executive session to modify their organization’s bylaws, in what many assumed was an effort to clarify membership guidelines and address potential outcomes of an ongoing legal dispute with the Illinois Farm Bureau.
Iowa Farm Bureau President Brent Johnson, who made the motion to go into executive session as their event kicked off in San Antonio on Tuesday, said, “We haven’t talked about our bylaws in quite a while, and so it made sense to me that we're talking about our own governance within our own family, and we'll do that in closed doors.”
In November the Illinois Farm Bureau filed suit against AFBF in an escalating dispute over membership requirements for people who buy insurance from the state organization's affiliate. AFBF's board of directors voted Nov. 7 to terminate the membership of Illinois Farm Bureau in the national organization, effective Dec. 20, after IFB informed AFBF that affiliate Country Financial Insurance Co. was changing its underwriting rules to no longer require policyholders to be Farm Bureau members.
As part of the bylaw revisions, “a large majority of our delegates from across the country affirmed the importance of membership to our organization,” said AFBF Executive Vice President Joby Young.
For example, language was added to emphasize that members would strive “in good faith to recruit and retain farmer and non-farmer Associate Members.” Article V was amended by adding that, effective Feb. 1, any member state organization subject to a pending but not yet effective termination of its membership by the American Farm Bureau Federation must pay annual dues equal to the state organization’s annual dues for the immediately preceding AFBF fiscal year, plus an annual inflation adjustment of 2%. Another change would make that same member state pay a proportional share of the balance of its dues to the AFBF by the 15th day of each month.
Joby YoungAgri-Pulse reached out to three Illinois Farm Bureau delegates about the changes, and they all responded with “no comment.” In a later response, Illinois Farm Bureau President Brian Duncan sent a statement noting his organization's opposition to and disappointment with the bylaw changes.
“Our position remains unchanged – we believe the amendment is improper, and we plan to take appropriate legal steps to protect Illinois FarmBureau, our county Farm Bureaus and our Illinois members against the enforcement of the amendment. Illinois Farm Bureau views the amendment as a violation of our legal rights and an attempt by AFBF to circumvent the court’s authority in our pending litigation.”
On the policy front, there were no major changes in farm bill language, given that those were widely debated in the past. A new farm bill has been delayed and extended twice by Congress.
Some new language was added to address crop insurance, including support for a program that indemnifies tree and vine loss from insect or pest damage, diseases, pathogens or viruses in addition to traditional forms of loss. There was also support for creating a crop insurance option for startup farm operations that do not have a history of production.
One new amendment called for USDA’s chief economist to study the feasibility of developing a cottonseed marketing assistance loan program. Another called for new farm bill language that would reimburse farmers for “depredation and harassment expenses” by federally protected species.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
Regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the delegates called for an “educational component” to encourage beneficiaries to learn about healthy eating and budgeting.
On other subjects, the organization added its opposition to “any and all forms of diversity, equity and inclusion or wokeness being forced into our public school systems and publicly funded institutions or government agencies.” One delegate questioned the definition of “wokeness” and in the absence of anyone providing such, questioned why the word would be included in AFBF policy.
Washington State President Rosella Mosby moved to strike the amendment, citing the need to attract more people into agriculture, but Texas Farm Bureau President Russell Boening argued that some DEI language created “real problems for our producers,” including the way some USDA programs were administered. The motion to delete was defeated.
There were several changes surrounding workforce and immigration — prominent topics during their annual meeting. The organization supported comprehensive immigration reform, “provided agricultural employers and their existing workforce are taken into consideration to ensure that reforms do not disrupt agricultural production.”
Delegates supported more clarity on H-2A housing inspections and fines and continued support for elimination of the adverse effect wage rate. Until that happens, they support legislative proposals that would cap year-over-year increases and account for regional variability with competitive labor rates. In addition, they asked for federal wage rate methodology to correlate with state minimum wages.
“U.S. immigration policy must recognize that agriculture has become increasingly reliant on migrant and foreign-born workers to fill both seasonal and year-round labor needs,” noted one amended policy.
On other issues, the delegates:
- Support a continuous border barrier (fence) along the U.S. -Mexico border that is impenetrable by “not only persons but livestock and wildlife.”
- Support maintaining daylight saving time year-round with elimination of the standard time change.
- Oppose USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services changing the classification of a potato from a vegetable to a grain in the school lunch program.
- Support fining companies that received broadband loan or grant bids if they failed to quickly build out infrastructure.
- Support USDA reimbursing farmers for biosecurity and infrastructure to protect livestock and poultry and USDA funds for testing due to animal disease outbreaks. However, delegates opposed “overreaching federal mandates” when responding to livestock health outbreaks.
- Support a “cost-effective” national system for livestock identification, as long as it is voluntary.
- Want products that have undergone approval under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to be protected from “frivolous lawsuits making unsubstantiated health and safety claims.”
- Oppose tariffs and regulations that would limit supply or increase the prices of agricultural production inputs.
- Want new restrictions on siting solar and other renewable energy projects across rural America, including blocking public funds that allow eminent domain for green energy transmission lines.
- Oppose “foreign adversary” ownership, leasing or material investment in agricultural land and natural resources that would result in “unequal or unfair trade advantages and pose a threat of any kind to national security.”
- Support a transparent, voluntary, market-based carbon credit trading system with USDA being the governing agency for research, monitoring and verification.
- Oppose using eminent domain to secure carbon storage space.
Editor's note: This article was updated on 1/29/25 to include a statement from Illinois Farm Bureau in reaction to AFBF's bylaw changes.
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
