Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Change: Focus Turns to Committee Chairman & Sec. Vilsack; Animal Agriculture; and Food Safety
Climate Change- Pelosi Turns Focus to Ways and Means and Agriculture
Recall that on Tuesday, the Speaker of the U.S House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-California) held a press briefing to discuss her visit to China, which she made over the Memorial Day recess. A key part of her briefing related to climate change, including the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21.
Recall that as Waxman-Markey bill headed to other House Committees with secondary jurisdiction, some unknowns remained regarding the scope and breadth of that jurisdiction.
In her remarks from Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi provided additional insight into the next steps for Waxman-Markey- that the Ways and Means Committee and Agriculture Committee would be allowed to markup the legislation.
To listen to Speaker Pelosi’s specific comments on this issue just click here (MP3- 37 seconds); and for comments regarding the timeframe in which these Committees will take up the bill, just click here (MP3- 48 seconds).
Darren Samuelson reported yesterday at The New York Times Online (Greenwire) that, “So far, two powerful House Democrats — Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York and Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota — have suggested they have the most at stake with the climate bill.
“Both have said they will exercise jurisdiction over the measure to a far greater extent than the leaders of the other House panels: Education and Labor Chairman George Miller of California, Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar of Minnesota, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman of California.”
Mr. Samuelson added that, “Rangel yesterday said he planned to hold a markup on the climate bill, but he was still reluctant to give a specific schedule. Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee were scheduled to huddle with Rangel today to sift through the obstacles on both climate change and health care.”
And the article stated that, “Peterson also has turned his attention to the global warming bill, with a meeting scheduled for today with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). In an interview, Peterson said he would not bow to pressure to move the measure too quickly.
“‘The speaker, she wants to move this, but I think she understands we’re going to do this right,’ Peterson said. ‘So if it takes time to do it right, we’re going to do it right.’”
Lisa Lerer reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi notified committee chairman on Wednesday that they had to finish work on the climate and energy bill by June 19, according to Democratic aides.
“Six different committees are working on the legislation, which creates a cap and trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The quick turnaround on the 932-page bill sets the stage for the legislation to move to the full House before the July 4 recess.”
Yesterday’s Politico article added that, “Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has also raised concerns about the legislation, arguing that the rural Democrats on his committee will not vote for the bill unless it contains greater protections for farmers.
“California Democrat Henry Waxman, the lead sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, met with Peterson on Wednesday.
“‘I’m optimistic,’ said Waxman. ‘If we can work out our problems we should be ready to go on the House floor.’”
Jared Allen reported yesterday at the Hill Online that, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday issued an ultimatum to her committee chairmen: move climate change legislation by June 19 or risk losing jurisdiction over the bill.
“By imposing the deadline, Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asserting her authority over Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), among others, in an effort to unhinge her signature issue, which has been mired in intra-party politics.”
The Hill article explained that, “Peterson said he was also made aware of the deadline, but added he is ‘nowhere near’ scheduling a markup. Before the recess, he claimed to have 40 to 45 votes lined up against the bill if he doesn’t get a crack at it.
“But Peterson this week seemed to back off his threats.
“‘We’re not trying to stop this bill,’ he said Wednesday. ‘We’re trying to make it workable.’”
And later, yesterday’s Hill article stated that, “After having a 45-minute discussion with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Wednesday morning, Peterson said he still has a long list of provisions in Waxman’s bill that are troubling to him and his Agriculture Committee Democrats.
“‘Our staffs are working down the list,’ Peterson said. ‘We have to get through this list and see what we can get resolved before looking at a markup.’
“Peterson said he had a ‘good’ meeting with Waxman. Waxman said he was ‘optimistic’ about continued negotiations.”
In an audio interview from Tuesday (about seven minutes), Mark Gaede, the Director of Government Affairs for Environmental Policy for the National Association of Wheat Growers provided a general overview and recap of the Waxman-Markey bill and discussed in greater detail some of the changes that some agricultural stakeholders would like to see made to the bill. (See related letter here).
And more specifically with respect to the Agriculture Committee, Reuters writer Charles Abbott reported yesterday that, “Peterson announced opposition to the climate bill a month ago on grounds that he did not trust federal regulators to treat ethanol fairly. Since then, he has filed a bill, backed by 47 other representatives, to change biofuel regulations.
“The major changes in the bill would be to make more U.S. land eligible to produce biomass for advanced biofuels and to measure change in U.S. cropland, but not land overseas, in calculating if biofuels reduce greenhouse gases sufficiently.
“No date has been set for an Agriculture Committee meeting to examine the climate bill nor have any amendments been made public.”
A Reuters news article from Tuesday added that, “Democrats from farm states are threatening to withhold support unless they win safeguards for ethanol and other biofuels from proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The climate bill could give them leverage: assuming most House Republicans oppose the bill, many in this group of moderate Democrats must be on board in order to pass the measure.”
Climate Change- Focus on Executive Branch and Sec. Vilsack
Simultaneous to attention in the House, DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has apparently gone out on a limb with his campaign to get an agriculture and forestry carbon-credits program added to the climate change bill moving through Congress with USDA named as the agency to manage it.
“Asked whether Vilsack’s comments reflected administration policy, a White House spokesman said in an email, ‘President Obama has consistently underscored the importance that the agriculture and forestry sectors will play in achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Both the USDA and EPA agree that working together to tackle climate change and implement a system of clean energy incentives is not only good for the environment but will also help grow rural economies.’
“But a White House official added, ‘The administration hasn’t taken a position on the specifics where we want any component parts of the program (cap and trade) to be administered.’”
Mr. Hagstrom indicated that, “The climate bill approved last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee exempts agricultural operations from regulation, but doesn’t provide any opportunity for forestry or farming to provide offsets such as capturing and sequestering carbon.
“Vilsack’s statements surfaced in an account of a community forum Vilsack held last week in McAfee, Ky. Al Cross, a former Louisville Courier-Journal reporter who runs the Institute for Rural Journalism at the University of Kentucky, wrote on the Institute’s Rural Blog that Vilsack said he would push Congress to include an agriculture and forestry carbon-credits cap-and-trade program and give it to USDA to run.”
Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at The Green Fields Blog (The Des Moines Register) reported that, “A leading House Republican is pressing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to spell out how agriculture is going to benefit from legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions, especially given that the House version doesn’t include provisions sought by farm organizations. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma is the senior Republican on the House Agriculture Committee says in a letter to Vilsack that the House bill ‘does not recognize the role agriculture can play in providing carbon offsets, and it does not provide a meaningful way for farmers to participate in carbon credit programs.’ He goes on, ‘Right now, this bill will only serve to create a national energy tax that will dramatically increase the operating costs for our producers and hurt American agriculture.’”
Mark Gaede, the Director of Government Affairs for Environmental Policy for the National Association of Wheat Growers, in his audio interview from Tuesday, also focused briefly on the comments Sec. Vilsack has made recently regarding USDA’s role within cap and trade legislation. To listen to Mr. Gaede’s comments on this issue, just click here (MP3- 31 seconds).
Meanwhile, Edward Luce reported on Tuesday at The Financial Times Online that, “Mindful of the need to get something in place if the US is to take leadership of the all-important global warming summit in Copenhagen in December, most environmental groups have praised the bill. So too have surprisingly large chunks of industry. But therein lies the problem.
“Much like the Danish fairy tale about the emperor with no clothes, everyone in Washington has an interest in praising Mr Waxman’s efforts. Few – barring Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth on the left, and groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers on the right – have come out in opposition.
“But the closer one looks, the less viable it appears. The 946-page bill would surely rank as the most complex effort so far to regulate greenhouse gases. The result of painful compromise between the relatively green bi-coastal Democrats and their ‘brown-dog’ (pro-energy sector) colleagues from the mid-west and the south, the prospective law jumbles up huge near-term subsidies for the energy industry with strict long-term exhortations for them to change.”
The FT article added that, “But even if the Senate agreed to this heavily watered down and loophole-ridden bill, it would be unlikely to impress America’s partners in Copenhagen.”
***
And with respect to the Copenhagen climate conference, a news release issued yesterday by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN indicated that, “Agricultural mitigation in developing countries can make farming more resilient to the vagaries of climate change and can also reduce hunger and poverty, FAO said in a policy brief for climate change negotiators currently meeting in Bonn/Germany.”
The FAO release added that, “‘Millions of poor farmers around the globe could help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,’ said Peter Holmgren, FAO focal point for the UN climate change negotiations.
“‘But this requires massive investments and information — to change unsustainable farming methods and to train farmers in mitigation practices. A new global climate agreement, to be adopted in Copenhagen in December, therefore needs to include agriculture,’ Holmgren added.”
Animal Agriculture
Cami Reister reported yesterday at The Grand Rapids Press Online (Michigan) that, “A good portion of the four million eggs produced daily at Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch end up in Egg McMuffins, Bacon, Egg & Cheese McGriddles or some other McDonald’s menu item.
“So company President Stephen Herbruck took notice when McDonald’s USA announced it would partner with animal welfare scientists, egg suppliers and universities in an expansive study of housing alternatives for egg-laying chickens — including cage-free housing.
“Eighty percent of Herbruck’s hens are in cages.”
The article added that, “Wendy’s restaurants said it would begin using cage-free eggs for 2 percent of its egg purchases. Other fast-food restaurants chains, including Burger King and Quizno’s, also source a portion of their eggs from cage-free farms.
“The decisions are the result, in part, to a factory farming campaign by the Humane Society of the United States. The society calls hens ‘arguably the most abused animals in all agribusiness,’ citing limited mobility, beak trimming and their inability to engage in natural behaviors such as nesting, dust bathing and perching.”
The article indicated that, “Dick Patmos, president of Sunrise Acres Farms in Hudsonville, said the cage-free movement has been getting stronger in recent years. His farm produces 1.4 million eggs daily.
“Feelings and emotions play a big role in the debate for animal activists, he said, but he sees it as an economic issue, too. Going completely cage-free will drive up consumer costs, he said.
“‘Out in the marketplace, people have access to any kind of eggs they want to buy,’ Patmos said. ‘If they want them, they can buy them.’”
The article stated that, “Patmos recently spent $2 million to voluntarily comply with United Egg Producers Animal Welfare Program, an industry group that requires, among other things, a minimum of about 70 square inches of space per caged bird — not enough for animal activists.
“Compliance with that group’s standards also is required by his customers, Patmos said.
“United Egg Producers auditors visited his farm last week for an inspection.”
And Jazmine Ulloa reported today at the Boston Globe Online that, “Beacon Hill lawmakers considered a bill yesterday that would impose comprehensive restrictions on farms, requiring that animals be housed with room to stand up, lie down, turn around, and extend their limbs or wings.
“If passed, the legislation, sponsored by Representative Pam Richardson, a Framingham Democrat, would bar what activists call some of the most egregious practices on farms: small cages for egg-laying hens, veal crates for calves, and gestation crates for pigs.”
The article indicated that, “Kevin R. Haley, general counsel for United Egg Producers, said the bill would create havoc in food production. ‘The housing system it describes doesn’t resemble any current operating system, including cage-free,’ he said. ‘Cage-free operations are so crowded, they cannot stretch out their wings.’
“David Shepard told lawmakers that current farm housing practices are not cruel to animals. The ninth-generation farmer from Warren said he does not understand why such long-accepted practices are being criticized.”
Food Safety
Gardiner Harris reported in today’s New York Times that, “Margaret A. Hamburg, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, plunged on Wednesday into the contentious debate over how to fix the nation’s food safety system.
“In her first appearance before Congress as commissioner, Dr. Hamburg told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health that a safety overhaul sponsored by several leading Democrats was ‘a major step in the right direction,’ but that her agency would need more money to carry it out.
“The hearing demonstrated that a bipartisan consensus that had been apparent in nearly two dozen previous hearings had since been lost. Again and again, Republicans complained about specific aspects of a measure the committee is expected to vote on as soon as next week.
“That legislation, still in draft, blends provisions from bills offered by several top Democrats and includes requirements that all food manufacturers write and carry out safety plans, pay an annual registration fee of $1,000 to the F.D.A. and keep track of the distribution of all food products.”
Jared A. Favole and Jane Zhang reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) called food safety ‘a shared responsibility’ between government and the industry, and added: ‘Although I wish we did not have to resort to industry fees to supplement funding for FDA’s work, the shortfall in resources in the agency’s foods program is dire.’’ Karen Lightfoot, a spokeswoman for Rep. Waxman, said the committee hopes to vote on the legislation in the next few weeks.
“The proposed legislation would also give the FDA new powers to recall food products that it thinks may cause harm. Currently, the agency can only request that companies recall their products.”
Keith Good
