Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) was finally named chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee last week, telling reporters she'll be a "different type of ag chair," but pledged to support production agriculture.  Some critics of her appointment said Michigan's agriculture is too specialty crop oriented and Stabenow lacks an understanding of and support for federal crop programs. 
 

Stabenow told reporters at the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) annual meeting in Atlanta that food security is a priority for her, and cited "American leadership in innovation, biotechnology and increased efficiency to feed the world."  She also singled out EPA and pledged to work to "resolve issues related to FIFRA and the Clean Water Act."  She also touted her commitment to export market development. On the 2012 Farm Bill, Stabenow said she sees the omnibus farm legislation as a "jobs bill." She's committed to a "strong safety net" for farmers, but acknowledged the budget pressures and the "need to be creative."  "The safety net may look a little different than it does now, but we can't have family businesses going under..."  She also called for a cooperative effort on conservation, energy, trade, research and specialty crops. 

With the 112^th Congress in session, the new GOP House majority began in earnest this week working on the creation of plans by which it intends to cut federal government spending to FY2008 levels over the next two years, then reduce non-security discretionary spending to FY2006 levels, saving overall $2.5 trillion over the next decade.  Meanwhile, the Senate is on an extended recess through January 23, and when it returns, is expected to begin formalizing proposals to modify Senate rules to expedite the legislative process. First up in the House will be a symbolic vote on repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the sweeping health care reform law enacted last year.

Republicans have the votes to pass the repeal, but the Senate will not take up the bill any time soon, and if it does - and the bill passes - President Obama has vowed to veto the measure.  What the vote signifies is GOP commitment to its cut-spending, shrink-the-government philosophy, and nearly half a dozen House committees will begin the hearing/oversight process to identify where in the new law discretionary spending can be cut and which programs can be eliminated or retooled.  Both sides of the congressional aisle - and the White House - have acknowledged the bill, pushed through the House by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) with little input from the Republicans, can be "improved." The House leadership has said repeatedly no federal program will be protected from possible cuts, and the first signal of how deep those cuts will be will come when the House Budget Committee - and Chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) - use new authority to set budget allocations for each committee.

These allocations outline the process of program/agency review, reauthorization or repeal, and are used by appropriators in determining the level of spending for the upcoming fiscal year.  The next hurdle will be a vote on the federal debt ceiling, sure to be a contentious issue.  GOP leadership has already ordered an across-the-board 5% cut in House committee budgets.  The Senate is trying to negotiate modernization of its floor operations, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) discussing whether changes can be made to rules governing member "holds" on nominations and legislation and restrictions on Senate filibusters. 

Ranking agriculture committee member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) this week announced the new Democrat members of the House Agriculture Committee.  The 20 Democrats, including 13 returning members, are ranking member Peterson, Rep. Tim Holden (PA), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA) Rep. Joe Baca (CA) Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA) Rep. David Scott (GA), Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX), Rep. Jim Costa (CA), Rep. Tim Walz (MN), Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR), Rep. Larry Kissell (NC), Rep. Bill Owens (NY) Rep. Chellie Pingree (ME), Rep. Joe Courtney (CT), Rep. Peter Welch (VT), Rep. Marcia Fudge (OH), Rep. Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana Islands, Rep. Terri Sewell (AL), and Rep. James McGovern (MA).

After months of promises, the Department of Transportation finally sent to the Mexican government a "concept document" aimed at jumpstarting negotiations to allow cross-border trucking between the two nations and an end to retaliatory Mexican tariffs on U.S. exports.  Last week, DOT circulated the document which proposes Mexican truckers/companies would be allowed to apply for an operational permit for U.S. operations, with the total number of permits allowed to be negotiated between the U.S. and Mexico. Applicants would be checked out - driving records, safety management, vehicle inspections, EPA emissions, English proficiency and a criminal background check - as well as being subject to two special safety inspections by the U.S. government, and if those inspections are passed, the Mexican carrier would be granted "full operating authority."  Independent truckers, who along with the Teamster's Union, successfully killed the original cross-border trucking program during the Bush Administration, immediately condemned the DOT proposal, saying the U.S. was caving to Mexican "bullying," referring to the tariffs on U.S. goods in place and expanded since the earlier program was killed.
 

The Mexican government said it will maintain its tariffs on 99 U.S. products, but will not add products to the list or change those currently targeted while negotiations with the U.S. are pending. 

 

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D, OH) is contemplating introduction of a bill to delay by one year EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rules, a move some see as more doable than a two-year delay pushed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV).  Meanwhile, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the chief executive of the American Farm Bureau Federation renewed their calls for action, saying blocking EPA's process is critical to the Chamber's and AFBF's legislative agendas. At the same time, 50 House Republicans introduced legislation to block EPA from regulating GHG emissions, deeming greenhouse gases to be exempt from the Clean Air Act.
 

Brown has made no final decision on the one-year delay, and a spokesman for his office said he's mulling over several alternatives to the Rockefeller approach.  Brown has been talking to colleagues for months over how to best rein in EPA's regulatory approach to GHG permitting. Rockefeller says a one-year delay won't cut it; two years is needed for technology to catch up with the regulatory environment so businesses can successfully engage in carbon capture and storage. Chamber President Tom Donahue called the EPA rulemaking process a "regulatory tsunami" from the Obama Administration.  AFBF's Bob Stallman told his members at the organization's annual meeting in Atlanta last week, that stopping EPA will prevent efforts to "downsize American agriculture, mothball our productivity and out-source our farms."
 

EPA announced this week it will defer for three years new greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting regulations for biomass-fired and biogenic powered sources.  The agency said the additional time will be used to review additional science and to develop rulemaking on how biomass emissions can be treated under the Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting process.  The rulemaking is expected to be published in July.  Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said he "strongly supports" the EPA action, saying "America's forest owners, farmers and ranchers can play a crucial role in providing renewable energy from wood, switchgrass and other agricultural products. Homegrown energy can provide jobs in rural America while reducing greenhouse gases."  EPA said the three-year time table will also allow it to more closely review more than 7,000 comments received from a July, 2010, request for public comment on how the burning of certain types of biomass may emit the same amount of GHG, primarily C02, as conventional fuels.  Environmentalists condemned the EPA action, arguing that varying factors produce wide discrepancies of biomass' estimate climate impact and that biomass must be included in the broad emissions calculations. 

 

Climate change and rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns may lead EPA to conduct more frequent periodic reviews of pesticides, at least more often than the once-every-15-year reviews currently conducted, the agency said this week.  Modifying the review schedule was one of several questions EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs asked its science advisory panel which met last month to talk about climate change impacts on research and regulatory programs.  Also discussed was how climate change could force changes in the way EPA sets up risk-assessment models, how crop production patterns will shift, the use of historical data in risk assessments, and how far back EPA should go in using historical data to predict future weather trends. No consensus among the science panel members came from the discussion.

It took an executive order and two White House memos, but this week President Obama ordered every federal agency to begin reviewing pending and existing federal rules to ensure the regulations are not inhibiting economic growth.  Almost immediately after the White House announcement, however, EPA said it was "confident" it would not be required to change current or pending rulemakings on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The new reg review program, a move called for by the business community for the past two years, is a delicate balancing act, the White House implied, between protecting public health and welfare and ensuring the government does not "unreasonably burden business."  While most attention was paid to pending rulemakings that have garnered headlines, the Obama edict also orders all agencies to review existing rules to remove "outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."  EPA said its GHG rules and pending rulemakings "comfortably pass muster under the sensible standards the President has laid out."  In an interview with a Washington, DC paper, an unidentified Administration official said EPA's climate rules will be subject to additional review and analysis. Democrat members of Congress praised the action as a "bold step;" GOP members said it was a good move, but needs to be more aggressive.  

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has been trying for the last month to get conventional and biotech crop producers to come together in peaceful "coexistence," telling the American Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting last week they can expect less "government interference" if the two production systems can just get along.  All of this emanates from USDA's struggles to get biotech alfalfa deregulated and into fields, albeit with likely planting restrictions. The formal USDA decision on biotech alfalfa is expected shortly after the end of the current public comment period due January 24.  Vilsack told the AFBF members the alfalfa is safe and a good, even-handed agreement among producers would better serve the collective interest than continuing litigation.  Seven producer groups, including AFBF, wrote to the White House last week to tell the president they object to USDA's handling of the alfalfa situation, objecting to the proposed planting restrictions.  Many believe USDA is overstepping its authority by telling private landowners what they can or cannot do on their own land with a legal product.  Producers believe industry agreements are preferable to federal regulation, and a group of organizations ranging from conventional producers to organic production to biotech companies believe they're close to a consensus on the way in which biotech crops should be handled.

The second round of the planned GOP economic juggernaut is federal tax reform, and Rep. Dave Camp (R, MI), chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, wasted no time in announcing his panel's first hearing will be held January 20.  The hearing will focus on income taxes, and observers believe it's designed to steal thunder from President Obama's State of Union speech January 25 in which he's expected to call for a rewrite of the country's tax laws.
 

The hearing is the first in a planned series over the next few months, Camp said, adding the federal tax code has not seen a major rewrite since 1986.  Further, the tax deal cut in the waning days of the last Congress puts a December 31, 2012, hard deadline on extension of various tax cuts initiated during the Bush Administration, so action is necessary early.  Among issues to be discussed is broadening the tax base, but cutting individual and corporate income tax rates, an area of agreement between House GOP and the White House.  Camp has said he'd like to see the corporate rate cut to 25% from the current 35%, along with permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. 

On December 23, 2010 the Department of Transportation quietly proposed revisions to its hours-of-service (HOS) rules governing commercial truck drivers, a move trucking associations said was overly complex, burdensome and may cost the industry over $2 billion a year in lost productivity. The changes proposed include a limit of 10 or 11 hours of driving time following at least 10 consecutive hours off duty; limit the standard "driving window" to 14 hours, while allowing an extension of up to 16 hours twice a week; limit the actual duty time within that driving window to 13 hours, and drivers would be permitted to drive only if seven hours or less have passed since their last off-duty period of at least 30 minutes.  Comments on the proposed rule are due February 28, 2011. No changes are proposed to the exemption for agriculture.

A rail competition hearing will be held by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) on May 3, to determine the current state of competition and its impact on shippers, along with an examination of policy options to facilitate greater competition when appropriate. The announcement points out the rail industry has changed dramatically since the 1980s when competitive access standards were first set, including increased rail financial health and increased consolidation among the lines.  The STB said productivity gains seem to have dropped since 2004, while overall prices have increased.  The areas the STB will focus on include the financial state of railroads; alternative through routes; terminal facilities access; reciprocal service agreements; bottleneck rates; excess pricing, and the impact - positive and negative - any changes would have on the rail industry, shippers and the overall economy.  Initial comments are due to the STB by February 18, with reply comments due 28 days later or on March 18.  The hearing is currently scheduled for a single day, but the STB said it may extend the hearing if the number of participants or "breadth of written testimony warrants additional time."  Those wishing to speak at the hearing need to notify the STB by April 4.
 

Karen Ross, chief of staff to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, this week announced she will resign her job to accept an appointment by California Gov. Jerry Brown to be head of the California Department of Food & Agriculture.  Ross, well-respected by Washington, DC, ag interests because of her reputation as an advocate for production agriculture, is the former president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers. "Farmers are my heroes, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to enhance the industry," she said in announcing her acceptance of the Brown appointment.  Her appointment was greeted with widespread approval by California agriculture.  She begins her new job February 1.  Ross, who grew up on a Nebraska cattle operation, had been expected to be named to USDA's number two spot, deputy secretary, during the Obama transition; instead, the White House opted for organic agriculture advocate Kathleen Merrigan for the deputy slot.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Representative Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and U.S. Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) today sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack requesting the department to return to a science based regulatory system for agriculture biotechnology and to deregulate without conditions genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa.  In the letter, the members point out that while science strongly supports the safety of GE alfalfa, USDA's actions politicize the regulatory process and could set a harmful precedent for open pollinated crops in the future.

Full text of the letter to Sec. Vilsack is below:

January 19, 2011

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:
 

Recently, the Department convened a forum of stakeholders to discuss alfalfa co-existence.  The issue has generated a significant amount of controversy and emotion with implications for the future of agricultural biotechnology in the United States and around the world.  Since 1996, the innovation and adoption of agricultural biotechnology has not only brought significant environmental benefits, it has likewise contributed to higher yields, greater production, and higher profitability for U.S. farmers.  Each year, new products are brought to market under the oversight of a science based regulatory process that has no equal in the world.  This "Coordinated Framework" between the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) combines each agency's professionalism and expertise.
 

The forum followed the release of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates the potential environmental effects of deregulating genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa.  While the final EIS concluded that GE Alfalfa does not pose a plant pest risk, it nonetheless contained a significant departure from existing policy since it includes a third option to grant non-regulated status to the product with geographic restrictions and isolation distances.  These options had not previously been published in either the draft or final Environmental Assessment nor the draft EIS.  This is the first time these measures would be included in a regulatory decision where the crop did not pose a plant pest or health risk. The solitary reason for the "conditions" would be to interfere in planting decisions based on the risk of economic harm due to pollen drift.
 

As you acknowledge, the science strongly supports the safety of GE alfalfa.  The National Environmental Policy Act was specifically written to address the potential impacts of regulatory decisions on the environment.  The Act is neither designed nor well suited to manage or determine the economic relationships in the agriculture sector.  The third alternative steps beyond the scope of the Act and is a poor substitute for existing options available for farmers to amicably resolve the concerns regarding co-existence of agriculture biotechnology, conventional and organic crops.
 

The proposed third alternative is equally troubling due to the precedent it will set for open pollinated crops in the future.  For example, with 86 percent of the corn crop and 93 percent of cotton planted to biotech varieties last year, the decisions made in the context of alfalfa will be felt across the country.  Further, the implications of such decisions could potentially hinder the future development of varieties necessary to address the growing needs to produce more food, fiber and fuel on the same amount of land with fewer inputs.
 

It is unfortunate that those critical of the technology have decided to litigate and as you rightly point out that courts may unwisely interfere in normal commerce.  However, the alternative you propose and include in the EIS is equally disturbing since it politicizes the regulatory process and goes beyond your statutory authority and indeed Congress' intent in the Plant Protection Act (PPA).  The PPA requires the Secretary to make a scientific determination if the product under review is a plant pest (7 U.S.C. 7711(c)(3)).  If the final decision is that the product is not a plant pest, nor would the movement of the product in question impose the risk of dissemination of a plant pest, then USDA has no authority to impose further restrictions (7 U.S.C. 7712(a)).
 

We support a conversation between those supportive and critical of agriculture biotechnology.  However, suggestions that aspects of the conversation thus far have been taking place with the regulated entity under duress by the regulator are of equal concern.  Decisions should be based on science with other factors more appropriately considered in the market place.  Our government fought diligently to preserve the integrity of science based decision making in the World Trade Organization and the success in that body should not be so casually set aside.
 

We appreciate your attention to our concerns and look forward working with you on this important issue.

Very truly yours,

U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts

U.S. Representative Frank Lucas

Agriculture Committee Press Office

http://agriculture.house.gov