Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Legislation; EPA Issues; Biofuels; CRP; and Ag Trade Nomination
Climate Legislation
An update posted yesterday at CQPolitics reported that, “Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works panel tried Tuesday morning to overcome a partisan standoff that could derail a major climate bill even before the committee votes.
“But despite tentative overtures by each side, the feud appears to be continuing.
“Committee Republicans followed through on a threat to boycott Tuesday morning’s session, saying they won’t begin work on the bill until they see a full cost analysis of the measure, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions and establish a market for trading government-issued pollution allowances.”
The CQ update stated that, “Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., appears ready to carry through on a threat to break with normal procedures and move the bill through committee without them – a move the panel’s ranking Republican, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, called a ‘nuclear option.’
“One Republican, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, did appear at the committee meeting, offering a lengthy plea to Boxer to delay the markup until the EPA completes a complete cost analysis that it says would take about five weeks. ‘This is not a stalling tactic,’ he said. ‘It is not a ruse to delay marking up a climate bill. This is an attempt to get the best information about a bill that will affect the entire country.’
“But Boxer and other committee Democrats were unmoved, arguing they have already provided more than enough analysis of the legislation.”
To listen to an excerpt from yesterday’s discussion between Sen. Voinovich and Sen. Boxer, just click on this FarmPolicy.com audio file (MP3-3:24).
John Stanton reported yesterday at Roll Call that, “The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee went ahead and launched its markup of Chairman Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) climate change legislation Tuesday morning, despite a boycott by a majority of the panel’s Republicans.
“Although moderate GOP Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) did attend the opening session of the markup — which is expected to last several days [today’s meeting is scheduled to start at 10:15]— his presence was not being counted toward the official ‘quorum’ that would be needed to begin votes on amendments or to report the bill out of committee.”
Jim Snyder reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Voinovich insisted the boycott was not a ‘ruse’ intended to block the bill, only that Republicans wanted a fuller economic analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which released a 38-page summary when the bill was released last Friday.”
Mr. Snyder explained that, “Committee precedent calls for at least two Republicans to participate, although Boxer as chairwoman apparently had the discretion to move forward with just a quorum of members. In an effort to entice Republicans back into the fold, she gave committee members another day to file amendments and invited EPA officials to testify on Tuesday afternoon about the analysis they have done of the Senate climate bill.
“‘I have done something unprecedented as far as we can tell,’ Boxer said.”
A news release issued yesterday by the office of Nebraska GOP Senator and former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns indicated that, “Senator Mike Johanns today expressed concern about the possibility of pushing ahead with a vote on a landmark climate bill this week without complete analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said she’s prepared to move ahead with consideration of the climate bill despite objections by Republican committee members who want EPA to complete a full economic analysis of the proposal, as it did before the House considered its version of the bill.
“‘It is irresponsible and frankly hard to believe that anyone would want to consider a thousand-page bill that would impact families and businesses in every corner of the country without a full economic analysis,’ Johanns said. ‘EPA has said it will take a few more weeks to provide its economic figures. Given the potentially huge impact this bill would have on every section of our economy, there is absolutely no justification for ramming this bill through committee.’”
Meanwhile, some news accounts offered perspective on the potential impact of yesterday’s GOP hearing boycott and Sen. Boxer’s decision to move forward.
Dana Milbank stated in today’s Washington Post that, “Democrats are calculating that the Republican boycott will further cement the public impression that the minority party’s only concern is trying to stop President Obama’s agenda at any cost. But in overriding the GOP boycott, Democrats risk poisoning the environment on Capitol Hill even more and provoking additional delays by the minority.
“There was, for example, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s questioning of the integrity of Voinovich, a well-regarded lawmaker. ‘The senator from Ohio said that what he was engaged in was not a ruse,’ the Rhode Island Democrat said, but the claim ‘does not seem to stand up.’ Whitehouse added that ‘on the ‘trust but verify’ aspect of ‘This is not a ruse,’ I’m not sold.’”
And Lisa Lerer indicated yesterday at Politico.com that, “This end run around Republicans — ignoring the usual rules that require at least two Republicans to be present for a quorum — could further hinder the chances for an already troubled cap-and-trade bill.”
The article added that, “‘She [Sen. Boxer] poisoned the waters,’ said one Democratic aide.
“The partisan power play could also further marginalize Boxer, who considers herself one of the lead environmental voices in the Senate. Moderate Democrats blame Boxer’s partisan style for the failure of climate legislation last year.”
The Washington Post editorial board stated in today’s paper that, “The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began its markup of a massive climate change bill on Tuesday — without its Republican members. The Republicans have some reasonable concerns about the legislation. But their boycott isn’t helpful.”
The Post noted that, “Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), one of the panel’s Republicans, argues that the minority merely wants enough data to properly consider the bill. GOP members want the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a series of modeling runs that would be more extensive than those it has done on similar legislation.
“Ms. Boxer counters that 90 percent of the bill, known as Kerry-Boxer, is the same as the climate legislation that the House passed in June, legislation that not only the EPA but also the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration and numerous nongovernmental organizations analyzed closely. Indeed, EPA Associate Administrator David McIntosh said Tuesday that the differences wouldn’t even show up in the agency’s computer modeling, leaving little reason to conduct a completely new analysis before committee work commences. Instead, the EPA produced a ‘meta-analysis’ accounting for what differences there are. Democrats promise that the bill that eventually reaches the floor will undergo a full EPA workup before consideration in the full Senate. That should include GOP input on the parameters of the analysis.”
Today’s opinion piece concluded by saying, “Ms. Boxer brought Mr. McIntosh into the room Tuesday to answer just such questions. It would have been constructive if GOP committee members had been there to question him.”
Reuters writer Richard Cowan indicated yesterday that, “In a day that saw political maneuvering by both political parties, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer ended the first work session telling reporters she sensed a ‘fundamental shift’ in the debate because of a letter she received from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“The business group, which has long opposed climate change legislation, said it wanted to engage in a ‘new conversation’ on the issue.
“It called proposals by Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham a ‘positive, practical and realistic framework for legislation.’”
The Reuters article added that, “[Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)], who worked with Boxer to write the pending bill, told reporters he would meet on Wednesday with top aides of President Barack Obama to work out a ‘framework’ for a compromise bill that would include incentives for more U.S. nuclear power production and oil drilling.
“He said it would be possible to stitch together such a bill by the end of the year. Nevertheless, the full Senate is not expected to pass a climate change bill this year.”
A report on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer yesterday provided a recap of some of yesterday’s developments: “A key Senate committee opened hearings Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but Republicans largely boycotted the debate. Kwame Holman reports (MP3- 4:30).
Meanwhile, Alexander C. Hart reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Congress on Tuesday to take dramatic action to stop climate change, [video replay] but the political difficulties were evident as Republicans boycotted a Senate committee meeting on a global warming bill.
“‘We cannot afford missing the objectives in climate protection,’ Merkel said in a joint session of Congress. ‘The world will look to us, to the Europeans and to the Americans.’
“Before Merkel’s speech, Republicans shunned a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to protest the refusal of Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to order a new analysis of the legislation. The walkout stalled action on the 959-page bill.”
Juliet Eilperin reported in today’s Washington Post that, “German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Congress and the Obama administration Tuesday to take bold steps to address global warming, even as Senate Democrats and Republicans feuded over whether to press ahead with a climate bill.
“Speaking at a joint meeting of Congress, Merkel described climate change as one of the ‘great tests’ of the 21st century. She took pains to compliment lawmakers and the administration for viewing ‘the protection of our climate to be a very important task,’ even as she suggested that they move faster.”
Ms. Eilperin added that, “The committee markup and the appearance by Merkel have helped to keep momentum behind the push for climate legislation, [Sen. John] Kerry suggested, adding that he met Tuesday with the prime minister of Sweden as well as the German chancellor.
“On Wednesday, Kerry said, he and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) are scheduled to meet with a host of administration officials, including White House climate-change adviser Carol M. Browner and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, to ‘ascertain the administration’s parameters’ for the climate bill, particularly on the subject of nuclear energy.
“‘Obviously it’s pushed back,’ Kerry said of the timeline for finishing a bill. ‘But that’s okay.’”
EPA Issues
A news release issued yesterday by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) stated that, “The AFBF has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to review a lower court ruling that will otherwise impose Clean Water Act permitting requirements on the application of pesticides on, over or near water.
“‘Allowing the lower court ruling to stand would pose serious challenges to farmers battling pests,’ said AFBF President Bob Stallman. ‘When pests strike, time is of the essence, and any length of time waiting for permit approval for products that are already approved would be disastrous.’”
Yesterday’s news release explained that, “The problem stems from a January 2009 ruling by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that interpreted the Clean Water Act did not regulate most pesticide applications into, over or near ‘waters of the United States,’ so long as the pesticide use complied with EPA’s requirements (such as EPA-approved label restrictions).
“The Sixth Circuit found in ‘National Cotton Council v. EPA’ that EPA must require Clean Water Act permits for pesticide application in water or near waters where pesticide falls into the water. The court recognized only a very narrow exception for chemical pesticides intentionally applied to water that leave no ‘residue’ after their use is complete. AFBF’s petition seeks Supreme Court review of that decision.”
For more detail and background on this issue, see this FarmPolicy.com update from April 13 of this year.
Amanda DeBard reported in today’s Washington Times that, “To appreciate the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama is a regulator reborn, consider this: EPA officials have begun to cut air pollution by invoking the Clean Water Act.
“Long quiescent under President George W. Bush, the agency is churning out initiatives and regulations at a pace that pleases its friends in the environmental movement and frightens many in the business community.”
Today’s article stated that, “In the past eight months, the EPA has proposed eight major new regulations for air pollutants that would strengthen the nation’s clean air laws almost overnight. In contrast, in the first eight months of the Bush administration, the agency proposed one small regulation that affected a limited number of polluters.
“‘The Obama EPA is issuing more significant rule-makings at a much quicker rate than the EPA did in eight years of the Bush administration,’ said Roger Martella, who served as the agency’s general counsel under Mr. Bush.”
A news release issued yesterday by the National Corn Growers Association stated that, “The National Corn Growers Association testified today before a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientific Advisory Panel that was convened in the wake of the EPA’s newly announced comprehensive review of health and ecological risks associated with the commonly used herbicide atrazine.
“In his testimony, NCGA Director of Public Policy Rod Snyder emphasized the thousands of existing studies that have been considered over the past decade by EPA in supporting the registration and safe use of atrazine in the United States. He also expressed concern with the fact that the agency has not identified any new credible data to merit a new comprehensive review of the product.”
Biofuels
Chris Kraul reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “[Eduardo Leao is] executive director of Brazil’s largest sugar industry association, called UNICA, and he insists that cane-based ethanol produced in massive quantities by his members is a better alternative fuel for the environment than electricity. He also is adamant that Brazilian sugar-based ethanol is a greener and more socially beneficial fuel than the corn-based ethanol commonly used in the United States, an assertion backed, with some qualifications, by many environmentalists.
“All of which only adds to the ire of Leao and his members at being largely shut out of U.S. markets by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports. He says the duty makes the fuel uneconomical for U.S. consumers except when oil prices spike as they did in mid-2008.”
The article noted that, “The Brazilian sugar industry’s complaint — which was relayed in person by Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to President Obama at a regional summit in April — points up one of the trickier aspects of U.S. renewable-energy policy that aims to reduce foreign oil imports, cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development of a domestic biofuels industry.
“The U.S. government is trying to assure a growing domestic market by mandating that an increasing percentage of fuel at the pump be ethanol and keeping most of Brazil’s lower-cost ethanol out. But the trade-off forsakes short-term environmental benefits that ethanol made from sugar cane may provide.”
The article indicated that, “Proponents of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol say the strategic goals could be defeated by opening U.S. doors to Brazilian ethanol, because it could lead to the replacement of one dependency — on oil imports — with another — on foreign ethanol, said Ken Cassman, director of energy science research at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
“‘The tariff provides an investment environment so that next-generation biofuels can get off the ground, to foster the build-out of the U.S. renewable fuels industry,’ Cassman said. ‘Plus, Brazil puts tariffs on everything, so let’s be fair here. Why give an advantage to a country that out-tariffs us on the stuff we make?’
The tariff is necessary in the sense that it offsets a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit that all ethanol producers qualify for. The U.S. government has no need or desire to extend such a benefit to a foreign supplier, Cassman added.”
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The AP reported today that, “Surveying undulating grasslands that disappear into the western Kansas horizon, retired farmer Joe Govert pointed out parcel after parcel no longer enrolled in a federal program that pays property owners not to farm environmentally sensitive land.
“The arid, wind-swept ground stripped of topsoil by Dust Bowl storms has laid undisturbed beneath a protective cover of native grasses that took two decades to re-establish under the Conservation Reserve Program. But millions of those acres are being plowed again after the 2008 Farm Bill capped the program at 32 million acres.
“More than 3.4 million acres nationwide were taken out of the program in September when the owners’ contracts expired. Most of them were in Texas, Colorado and Kansas, but hundreds of thousands of acres also came out in Montana and the Dakotas.”
Ag Trade Nomination
The New York Times editorial board indicated today that, “When Islam Siddiqui appears for his Senate confirmation, possibly as early as next week, it will be time for some tough questions.
“The White House has nominated Mr. Siddiqui for the position of chief agricultural negotiator in the office of the United States trade representative. He is presently a vice president at CropLife America, a coalition of the major industrial players in the pesticide industry, including Syngenta, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont. That job doesn’t seem to square with the Obama administration’s professed interest in more sustainable, less chemically dependent approaches to agriculture.”
After additional analysis, the Times concluded by saying, “This seems too narrow a perspective given the administration’s interest in the more organic approach favored by many consumers and farmers — an interest reflected not only by Mrs. Obama but by the appointment of Kathleen Merrigan, an advocate of sustainable agriculture, as deputy agriculture secretary.
“Everyone wants a pesticide backup, much like an antibiotic when diseases get out of control. But there are other ways to control pests — more diversity in crop production and rotation, for instance — besides chemicals. The negotiator we need is someone who can represent a broad view of American agriculture.”
Keith Good
