This Week in Congress

Senate Faces Limited Agenda Before Election

‍

With the House in recess until November 9, the Senate has a limited window to complete legislative business before the November elections. This week, the Senate continued work on the Protect College Sports Act (S. 4668), which addresses federal standards for college athletics and NIL agreements. Additionally, the Senate voted on one of the President's judicial nominees and the nomination of the next Secretary of Labor.

The Senate also debated the House-passed Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340) for a preliminary procedural vote. The legislation would address the costs of electricity-grid upgrades associated with data center demand. Republicans are expected to force votes on H.J. Res. 210 and H.J. Res. 213, Congressional Review Act resolutions that would disapprove of EPA waivers allowing California to implement stricter vehicle emissions standards. The House passed both resolutions last week.

Finally, Democrats are expected to push another Iran War Powers resolution, continuing congressional debate over the President's authority to conduct military operations involving Iran. With the House already out of session, the Senate's remaining legislative days before the election will be limited, making the timing of these votes increasingly important.

House Recesses Early as Senate Faces Key Legislative Decisions

The House recessed last Wednesday, a day earlier than planned, and will not return to session until November 9, following the midterm elections. The early departure came amid a politically complicated situation involving a procedurally mandated vote on articles of impeachment filed by Rep. Massie (R-KY) against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

• Crypto Bill Stalls; College Sports Bill Moves Forward - The Senate failed to advance a procedural motion that would have allowed consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, legislation intended to establish a federal regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency market. Following the setback, Republican leaders shifted their attention to the Protect College Sports Act, which would establish federal standards governing college athletes' name, image and likeness (NIL) agreements, among other provisions. The Senate voted 74-24 to approve the preliminary procedural motion.
• Permitting Reform Remains in Negotiations - Senate Republicans and Democrats continue to negotiate bipartisan legislation designed to streamline the federal permitting process for energy projects.  Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Capito (R-WV) and Ranking Member Whitehouse (D-RI) said late last week that negotiations are approaching an agreement, although several significant issues remain unresolved. Sen. Whitehouse is also seeking assurances from Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) that Speaker Johnson (R-LA) will allow the House to consider whatever permitting legislation the Senate ultimately approves.  If senators cannot reach an agreement to bring permitting legislation to the floor in the coming days, the Senate could adjourn after completing work on the college sports legislation.
• Senate Could Consider Data Center Legislation - The House overwhelmingly passed the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340) last week by a vote of 417-3. The legislation would establish a pathway for requiring data centers to pay for electricity-grid upgrades needed to accommodate their power demands. Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) is sponsoring the Senate companion legislation. Senate Democrats blocked an expedited floor vote last week, but Majority Leader Thune is considering bringing the bill up for a preliminary procedural vote. Democrats would likely oppose the procedural motion, which would require senators to take a public position on legislation addressing the rapidly growing electricity demands of data centers and their potential impact on utility ratepayers.
• No FY 2027 Budget Resolution Before the Election - Senate Majority Leader Thune has confirmed that the Senate will not vote on an FY 2027 budget resolution before the midterm elections. Republicans could revisit efforts to advance another party-line tax and spending package during the post-election lame-duck session. Whether that happens will depend on several factors, including the election results and the ability of members who are not returning to Congress to participate in the lame-duck session.
• House Passes Iran War Powers Resolution - The House last week voted for the third time to pass H. Con. Res. 93, a resolution directing the President to end the war with Iran. Seven Republicans—Reps. Tom Barrett (R-MI), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Tom Massie (R-KY), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), and Zach Nunn (R-IA)—joined all House Democrats in supporting the measure. The vote was notable because several of the Republican supporters represent competitive districts, while Reps. Mace and Massie will not return to Congress next year. The resolution has political significance, but it does not carry the force of law. Because it is a concurrent resolution, it does not require the President's signature and does not independently change existing law or executive authority.

What to Watch Before the Election

With the House already recessed and the Senate potentially facing a shortened legislative window, the amount of major legislation Congress can complete before the November elections is increasingly limited. The Senate's immediate agenda includes college sports and NIL legislation, potential action on energy permitting reform, and possibly the Ratepayer Protection Act addressing data center electricity costs. For businesses and associations following federal policy, the next several weeks will largely be focused on determining what legislation can move before the election and what issues will have to wait for the lame-duck session or the next Congress. The November elections will ultimately determine the makeup of the 119th Congress's final legislative session and shape the policy agenda for the next Congress.

Potential Diesel Export Ban Could Raise Concerns for Northeast Dairy Farmers

The Trump administration's consideration of a potential U.S. diesel export ban could have significant implications for Northeast dairy farmers, particularly as producers continue to face elevated operating and input costs. President Trump has expressed support for restricting diesel exports as a way to increase domestic fuel supplies and potentially lower prices. However, the administration is still evaluating the proposal. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has questioned whether a broad export ban would accomplish that goal, warning that restricting exports could cause U.S. refiners to reduce production and potentially push fuel prices higher. For Northeast dairy farmers, the issue is bigger than the price paid for diesel at the pump. Fuel costs are embedded throughout the farm and dairy supply chain, affecting everything from planting and harvesting crops to hauling milk and transporting feed and other farm inputs.

• Diesel Is Essential to Dairy Operations - Diesel is a critical input for dairy farms. Farmers rely on diesel-powered tractors and equipment for planting and harvesting corn and forage crops, making hay, spreading manure, moving feed and performing other fieldwork. Fuel is also needed to operate trucks and other equipment used around the farm. When diesel prices rise, the impact can quickly spread across multiple areas of farm operations. For Northeast dairy farms, the timing is particularly important because many operations are already managing high costs for labor, feed, equipment, energy and other inputs. Additional increases in fuel costs can further pressure farm margins.
• The Impact Extends Beyond the Farm - Higher diesel prices also affect the broader dairy supply chain. Milk must be collected from farms and transported to processing facilities on a regular basis. At the same time, farms rely on trucks to deliver feed, fertilizer, seed, equipment, replacement parts and other supplies. A potential increase in diesel prices could therefore affect:
  
  • Farm tractors and other equipment;
  • Milk hauling;
  • Feed and grain transportation;
  • Fertilizer and other agricultural inputs;
  • Equipment and machinery deliveries;
  • Farm construction and maintenance;
  • Refrigerated transportation; and
  • Dairy processing and product distribution.

For Northeast dairy farmers, these costs can accumulate throughout the production cycle.

• Uncertainty Over the Effect on Fuel Prices - The potential impact of a diesel export ban remains uncertain. Supporters of an export restriction argue that keeping more U.S.-produced diesel in the domestic market could increase domestic supply and reduce prices. However, Energy Secretary Wright has argued that restricting exports could cause refiners to reduce production if they lose access to foreign markets. That could ultimately put upward pressure on fuel prices rather than lowering them. This uncertainty makes the issue particularly important for farmers who must make production and purchasing decisions months in advance.
• Transportation Is Critical to the Dairy Industry - Unlike many agricultural commodities, milk cannot simply be stored on the farm while farmers wait for transportation costs to decline. Milk must be picked up regularly and transported to processing facilities. Consequently, higher diesel costs can affect not only the farmer but also milk haulers, cooperatives, processors and distributors. The same is true for feed and other agricultural inputs. Increased transportation costs can work their way through the supply chain before ultimately reaching the farm.
• What Dairy Farmers Should Watch - As the administration considers potential restrictions on diesel exports, Northeast dairy farmers and cooperatives should monitor several issues:
  
  • Wholesale and retail diesel prices;
  • Regional diesel availability;
  • Milk-hauling costs and fuel surcharges;
  • Feed, fertilizer and other transportation costs;
  • Farm equipment operating expenses;
  • Processing and distribution costs; and
  • Any federal policies designed to offset higher fuel costs.

For Northeast dairy producers, the key question will be whether a diesel export restriction actually lowers the cost and improves the availability of fuel for domestic users. Diesel is not simply another farm expense. It is an input that connects the entire dairy supply chain—from the tractor in the field to the truck hauling milk to the processing plant. Any federal policy affecting diesel markets could therefore have consequences well beyond the fuel pump and should be evaluated for its impact on farmers, cooperatives, processors and consumers.

‍