Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Budget- Cap and Trade Issues; Food Safety; Global Food Aid; and USDA Nominees
Budget-Cap and Trade Issues
Lori Montgomery reported in today’s Washington Post that, “Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly embraced President Obama’s ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities.
“Voting along party lines, the House and Senate approved budget blueprints that would trim Obama’s spending proposals for the fiscal year that begins in October and curtail his plans to cut taxes. The blueprints, however, would permit work to begin on the central goals of Obama’s presidency: an expansion of health-care coverage for the uninsured, more money for college loans and a cap-and-trade system to reduce gases that contribute to global warming.
“The measures now move to a conference committee where negotiators must resolve differences between the two chambers, a prelude to the more difficult choices that will be required to implement Obama’s initiatives. While Democrats back the president’s vision for transforming huge sectors of the economy, they remain fiercely divided over the details.”
The article noted that, “There is no agreement, for example, on how to pay for an overhaul of the health-care system expected to add more than $1 trillion to the budget over the next decade, nor is there consensus on how to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars the government stands to collect by setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions and forcing industry to buy permits to pollute. Those issues will be decided in committees where lawmakers have begun the torturous work on the specifics of Obama’s broad plans.”
Ms. Montgomery explained that, “The Senate, meanwhile, has roundly rejected reconciliation for Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal, adopting an amendment to ban the maneuver by a vote of 67 to 31. The House budget does not include cap-and-trade in its reconciliation provisions. But neither fact has deterred cap-and-trade advocates, and administration officials support leaving the door open in the budget blueprint when it emerges from conference committee for a final vote this month.
“Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called cap-and-trade ‘the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time,’ and said it would be difficult to pass without reconciliation because Democrats would be forced to accommodate a handful of Republicans as they did in the debate over the president’s stimulus package. Although winning use of the maneuver is unlikely, Cardin said, ‘a lot of us don’t want to give up without a fight.’”
Also with respect to the budget, David Rogers reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “In the case of agriculture, the president hurt himself strategically by coming forward with what the administration now admits was a poorly conceived plan to limit subsidies for farm households with gross sales of about $500,000 a year. Critics argued that this would affect even moderate-sized Midwest producers, and to help preserve rural support, the House resolution leaves the farm program intact, with none of the changes proposed by the White House.
“Obama met with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson at the White House last Friday. The Minnesota Democrat had opposed the president’s stimulus bill in February but backed the budget despite continued anxiety over the projected deficits.
“The White House and allies in the farm community were worried ‘we were getting off crosswise with the president and agriculture, and that would be a problem long-term if we got off on the wrong foot,’ Peterson told POLITICO. ‘The president got to understand where I was coming from, got to know me.’”
***
In more detailed reporting on cap and trade issues, Russ Blinch noted yesterday at the Commodity Corner Blog (Reuters News) that, “Democrats floated big plans to tackle climate change proposals in the U.S. Congress this week but realistically there will be much more hot air — both from industry and politicians — before this bill is turned into law.
“The draft legislation, running hundreds of pages, will now be considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in coming weeks along with all manner of panels. And, oh yes, the Senate, home of the filibuster, will also get to weigh in.
“At the heart of of the legislation is Cap and Trade — a panacea for those who believe greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet to dangerous levels and a boon to those who think the sinking economy makes this the dumbest time to anchor industry with more costs.”
The update stated that, “’This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution,’ said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman”…[but] “Listen to what a guy from Texas thinks: ‘Tuesday’s cap and trade bill marks a triumph of fear over good sense and science and it couldn’t come at a worse time because it proposes to save the planet by sacrificing the economy,’ said Representative Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the energy and commerce panel.”
And Keith Johnson noted yesterday at the Environmental Capital Blog (The Wall Street Journal) that, “Republican opposition to any sort of climate-change bill has sparked another battle—but this time, it isn’t in Congress.
“House Republican leader John Boehner started the fray by arguing that proposed legislation to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will raise utility bills by $3,100 per household.
“‘Anyone who has the audacity to flip on a light switch will be forced to pay higher energy bills thanks to this new tax increase,’ he said in a statement released Tuesday, citing a 2007 study by MIT that tried to calculate the economic impact of a cap-and-trade bill.
“Not so fast, says John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study. He told Republican leadership they had the numbers wrong even before they published their statement. After it was released, he sent a letter to Rep. Boehner yesterday saying the MIT study had been ‘misrepresented.’”
DTN writer Toddy Neeley reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “U.S. farmers may have a place at the table in the carbon cap and trade debate, but it’s unclear whether they will be able to benefit from carbon trading.”
Mr. Neeley indicated that, “Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said there are many concerns with what a cap-and-trade program would mean to U.S. farmers.
“‘We should question whether we’re reducing carbon in the U.S. if we’re moving this way,’ Young said. ‘It’s not clear how or if agriculture ends up a winner.’ There should be some concern about the potential collapse of carbon markets, he said, which would make it difficult for farmers to depend on that revenue.”
Yesterday’s DTN article noted that, “Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said that while many farmers have told him they don’t buy into the concern about global warming, they can’t afford not to jump on board.
“In the European Union, for example, carbon-credit traders are getting about $20 a ton of carbon sequestered, compared to about $2.50 in the U.S., he said.
“‘We’re either going to be regulated or rewarded,’ Buis said.”
Food Safety
Earlier this week, Reuters writer Christopher Doering reported that, “The U.S. food safety system is divided by competing philosophies and a lack of accountability that make it harder to protect consumers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Tuesday [at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing (video replay)] as the country faced another food recall.”
The Reuters article indicated that, “‘It seems to me today we have competing philosophies’ with the USDA focused more on prevention while the Food and Drug Administration targets mitigation due to a heavy workload and limited staffing, said Vilsack.
“Fifteen federal agencies handle food safety including FDA, which handles about 80 percent of the food supply, and USDA, which is in charge of red meat, poultry and eggs.
“‘When you have 15 separate agencies in the federal government responsible for some part (of food safety), you’ve got way too many,’ said Vilsack, who supports a single food agency. Who do ‘you hold accountable when there is a problem?’
“President Barack Obama announced a White House panel this month to improve food safety. He assigned Vilsack to head the group along with former Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, his nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.”
On Wednesday, Philip Brasher noted at The Des Moines Register Online that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appeared to step back Tuesday from earlier comments endorsing the creation of a single food safety agency.
“Vilsack told a House agricultural appropriations subcommittee that it was premature to say how food regulation should be organized.
“Recent outbreaks and food recalls have forced the Obama administration to focus on food safety.”
Yesterday, the “Washington Insider” section of DTN (link requires subscription) noted that, “In testimony earlier this week before the House Agriculture Appropriations Committee, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack did not appear as positive as he has been in the past about the need for a single federal food safety agency. Responding to questions from panel members, Vilsack instead said it is premature to say how the nation’s food regulations should be organized.
“Last month, President Obama named a special White House panel and gave it the task of improving food safety. He assigned Vilsack to head the group along with former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, his nominee to be secretary of Health and Human Services. During her confirmation hearing this week [video replay], Sebelius echoed many of Vilsack’s thoughts when she told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it was too soon to talk about splitting the Food and Drug Administration’s food and drug safety responsibilities into two agencies as some have suggested.”
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Weise reported yesterday at USA Today Online that, “Nuts. Americans love them. They are a heart-healthy staple of recipes, diet plans, kids’ lunches and snack foods.
“They have also been at the center of major salmonella outbreaks in recent years. The government and the food industry are working overtime to beef up guidelines on what companies need to do to keep consumers safe.”
Ms. Weise explained that, “And this week, 2 million pounds of pistachios were recalled because of concerns about contamination. Pistachios were a surprise because they historically have not been considered vulnerable to bacterial contamination, says Richard Matoian of the Western Pistachio Association in Fresno.
“The repeated outbreaks and recalls may bring about a new day in the oversight of nut production. For the peanut industry, ‘This is a wake-up call,’ says Emory Murphy, the Georgia Peanut Commission’s assistant executive director.
“President Obama, who has publicly expressed concern about the safety of the peanut butter his 7-year-old daughter, Sasha, eats, has made it clear that he sees food safety as a major concern. ‘No parent should have to worry that their child is going to get sick from their lunch,’ he said in the March 14 address in which he announced the creation of the Food Safety Working Group, an interagency effort to help overhaul the oversight system.” [Note: see this FarmPolicy.com update from March 20 for additional background and information on the President’s remarks regarding peanut butter].
Lyndsey Layton reported in today’s Washington Post that, “Despite four outbreaks of salmonella illness from peanut products in the past three years, the federal government has not changed the safety measures required of peanut companies or instructed its inspectors to test for the bacteria.”
The Post article stated that, “Last month, the FDA issued ‘guidance’ to food companies suggesting that manufacturers that use peanuts should buy them from processors that have systems to reduce the risk of salmonella. The guidance is only advice and does not carry the legal weight of a regulation.”
And today’s article pointed out that, “About half a dozen food safety reform bills are pending on Capitol Hill. Observers say a bill introduced by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) has the best chance of passing this session. It would require all manufacturers to develop food safety plans, use federally approved laboratories to test for pathogens, and send those results to the FDA. The bill would also require the FDA to annually inspect facilities that produce ‘high risk’ foods.” [See this March 3 news release from Sen. Durbin for more background].
With this general background on mind, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing yesterday to review federal food safety systems.
A Committee news release from yesterday stated that, “Food safety is a top priority in the Committee’s oversight plan for the 111th Congress.
“Witnesses at today’s hearing included three former Federal food safety officials and several food companies that interact with Federal food safety agencies. This is the first of several hearings that the Agriculture Committee plans to hold this year to consider food safety issues.”
A list of witnesses who appeared at yesterday’s hearing, along with their opening statements, can be viewed by clicking here.
To listen to a portion of Chairman Collin Peterson’s opening statement from yesterday’s discussion, click here (MP3-0:42).
Among the lawmakers taking part in yesterday’s hearing were Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Larry Kissell (D-NC).
To listen to issues brought up by Rep. Lummis, just click here (MP3-1:50) ; while a discussion stemming from a broad question regarding overall food safety concerns raised by Rep. Kissell can be heard here (MP3- 4:03).
Global Food Aid
An AFP article from yesterday reported that, “President Barack Obama announced Thursday that US food and agriculture aid to Africa, Latin America and other poor regions would double to more than one billion dollars because of the economic crisis.
“Obama said that he would start work with Congress in the coming days to give 448 million dollars in immediate assistance to vulnerable populations — such as those in Africa and Latin America.
“He added that he aimed to ‘double support for agricultural development to over one billion dollars so that we are giving people the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty’”.
A news release issued yesterday by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) stated that, “President Barack Obama announced today a doubling of assistance for global agricultural productivity and rural development. He also called for a comprehensive food security strategy to alleviate chronic hunger that affects nearly one billion people worldwide.
“The announcement tracks provisions of the Global Food Security Act of 2009, authored by U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar and approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 31.”
Yesterday’s news item added that, “The legislation, S. 384 [text, summary], sponsored by Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) authorizes additional funding for agricultural assistance that reaches $2.5 billion in FY2014. It also establishes a Special Coordinator for Food Security charged with devising a whole of government strategy for food security.”
USDA Nominees
Recall that on Wednesday, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing to considered the following executive branch nominees for key positions at USDA: Joe Leonard Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights; Kathleen A. Merrigan, of Massachusetts, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture; and James W. Miller, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
A replay of Wednesday’s hearing in its entirety can be found here; while audio excerpts from the hearing that featured questioning from Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) can be heard by clicking here (MP3-10:53).
In related news, DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Following a Senate Agriculture Committee confirmation hearing Wednesday on President Barack Obama’s nominees for three key posts at the Agriculture Department, Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he will try to get the nominations through the Senate before Congress leaves later this week for a two-week recess.
“Harkin said he would ask the Senate to not require his committee to vote on the nominations so he can take them straight to the Senate floor. He said Senate Agriculture ranking member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., had agreed to that approach.”
Keith Good
