House passes Farm Bill 2
- The bill funds the energy title, which funds biofuels research and development, energy efficiency programs and renewable-energy projects, by reversing $6.1 billion over ten years of the offshore drilling royalty payments mistakenly granted to oil and gas companies
- The bill found additional funding for food stamps by by ending a practice known as “earnings stripping,” which lets foreign-owned companies shift income to a country with lower tax rates, delivering $7.8 billion over 10 years
- The Senate is expected to start debating its version of the legislation after the August recess. Current programs expire Sept. 30 and it is unlikely Congress will be able to complete action on a new five-year bill by then. Instead, a short-term extension of the law is likely to be necessary.
- The $5 million per year Community Food Projects program to fight food insecurity by funding projects that promote the self-sufficiency of low-income communities was zeroed out.
- The Ron Kind (D-Wis.) amendment (H.AMDT. 700, text) to cut farm subsidies and invest the money in conservation, nutrition, rural development and deficit reduction failed 117-309
- The Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) amendment (text) to make it easier for Cuba to buy U.S. crops failed 182-245
- The John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) amendment to prevent farmers from locking in artificially high loan-deficiency payments failed 153-271
- The Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.) amendment (text) to increase the subsidy ceiling above $1 million if 75% of the recipient’s income was farm-related failed 175-252
- The Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) amendment (text) to make cuts to the crop insurance programs to support grasslands conservation failed 175-250
- The Lee Terry (R-Neb.) amendment (text)to create $10 million worth of sweet sorghum ethnanol demonstration project passed by voice vote
- The Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) amendment (text)to return plant pest inspections to the Department of Agriculture from Homeland Security Department passed by voice vote
River and water supply management bills
S.300, to authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, S.1258, to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize improvements for the security of dams and other facilities, S.1477, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the Jackson Gulch rehabilitation project in the State of Colorado, S.1522, to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2014, and H.R.1025, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a studyto determine the feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project to improve water supply reliability, increase the capacity of water storage, and improve water management efficiency in the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas
Bipartisan Support for Clean Energy Provisions in House Energy Bill
Members of the House will hold a news conference to urge support for the inclusion of clean energy provisions in energy legislation that will be taken up by the House in order to address the problem of global warming and provide solutions the nation’s energy challenges. The bills supported are the Udall-Platts Renewable Electricity Standard (HR 969) and the Markey-Platts Fuel Economy Reform Act (HR 1506).
Contact: Liz Hitchcock at 202-546-9707, ext. 316
- Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-Md.
- Rep. Paul W. Hodes, D-N.H.
- Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.
- Rep. Todd R. Platts, R-Pa.
- Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
- Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Todd Platts (R-PA), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Tom Udall (D-NM) said they will work to ensure that a strong 35 mile per gallon fuel economy standard and renewable electricity standard are included in the final bill. The Renewable Electricity Standard (H.R. 969) is sponsored by Reps. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA), and the Fuel Economy Reform Act (H.R. 1506) is sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA).
“Not since I first came to Congress over 30 years ago has America seen such high gas prices and the political will to move forward on fuel economy standards,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We need to ensure a strong 35 mile per gallon standard joins a renewable electricity standard in the final bill that heads to the President.”
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) said, “Energy is an economic, environmental, and national security issue. Higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, a renewable energy standard for electricity, and similar initiatives are important to saving consumers money, conserving our resources and protecting the environment, and lessening our dependence on foreign oil.”
The House energy bill includes important clean energy and energy efficiency measures, and the Senate has passed legislation that calls for an increase in fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon. The final congressional energy package could be further strengthened by adding provisions to increase renewable electricity and preserve a strong 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard. Twenty three states and the District have already passed a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), also called a renewable portfolio standard or RPS, which would require utilities to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy they use to generate electricity each year. It creates a market-based mechanism of tradable renewable energy credits – similar to the Clean Air Act trading system – allowing utilities to meet the requirements at the lowest cost.
Utilities would receive a credit for every kilowatt of electricity they produce from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, ocean, and biomass energy – which includes capturing the gas from landfills and animal waste – as well as for improvements made to existing hydroelectric facilities. These credits could be traded or sold among utilities, or bought from the Department of Energy.
“As Congress prepares to address the many important energy issues facing our nation, we must consider the benefits of renewable energy. Establishing a federal renewable portfolio standard will balance a wide range of interests,” Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) said. “Not only will it help us meet our growing demand for electricity, it will also reduce our exposure to fossil fuel price spikes and supply interruptions, increase economic development in the renewable energy industry, and improve our environment.”
A 2006 analysis by U.S. PIRG found that by obtaining 20 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020 combined with a cap on global warming pollution, the U.S. would cut global warming pollution over 500 million tons, the equivalent of taking approximately 89 million cars off the road. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an RES standard of 20 percent by 2020 would generate over 185,000 new high-paying jobs in manufacturing, construction and more. In addition, the policy would save consumers at least $10.5 billion on their electric and natural gas bills by 2020.
“The Udall-Platts Renewable Electricity Standard amendment will create public benefits for everyone. The renewable energy goals it sets are significant, and the requirement is not overly burdensome for states as it gives them flexibility to achieve these goals. The passage of this amendment will benefit farmers, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security,” said Rep. Mark Udall, who is co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House of Representatives.
The Markey-Platts Fuel Economy Reform Act guarantees an annual four percent increase in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to ensure the U.S. achieves 35 miles per gallon for new cars by 2018. Experts say that by 2022, this action would reduce oil consumption by the same amount currently imported from the Persian Gulf, about 2.2 illion barrels of oil a day. In addition, the measure would save consumers $37 billion at the pump and lead to 241,000 additional jobs.
“Upgrading fuel economy standards is a commonsense step to decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil,” said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL). “Increasing standards would save the average American family $2,000 per year. Additionally, a national renewable electricity standard will allow us to take advantage of the economic benefits of renewable energies.”
Several conservation groups have stepped up their lobbying on Capitol Hill in support of these amendments in recent days to ensure continued momentum on clean energy as House consideration of an energy bill approaches. The Senate passed its energy bill last month.
Cap-and-trade hearing prelude to Senate legislation
Tomorrow’s global warming hearing, led by Joe Lieberman, will be a prelude to the cap-and-trade legislation now being written by his and John Warner’s staffers. This bill will be the default Senate cap-and-trade bill unless matters dramatically change. See CQ Green Sheets for more.
The Hill: Oil industry lobbyists in fits
From The Hill: Lobbyists face energy bill dilemma. In short, oil and gas lobbyists, long in the GOP camp, are struggling to kill Titles 1 and 2 of Nick Rahall’s bill (H.R. 2337), which repeal the massive tax breaks for oil companies in the Republican Energy Policy Act of 2005. Their best friends on the Democratic side are Blue Dogs Charles Melancon of Louisiana and Jim Matheson of Utah. Also in question is whether there will end up being time for a vote on the legislation, with the farm bill (with which agribusiness is happy enough), commerce, justice and science (CJS) appropriations, transportation appropriations, and children’s health insurance also on the docket before the August recess.
By Jim Snyder July 24, 2007 One of the toughest decisions a lobbyist makes is when exactly to lobby against something. Do you try to stop a bill in committee, marshal opposition on the floor, or wait for the relative secrecy of a congressional conference committee to let loose the arrows in your quiver?Pelosi’s LeadershipIt may be easier to stop an offending provision before the Government Printing Office ink is dry. But sometimes it’s better to allow an opponent an early win, especially if one of your opponents is the Speaker of the House, before a final defeat.
Oil and gas lobbyists, playing defense all session, are weighing how hard to push their backers on Capitol Hill to draw a line in the sand on energy legislation.
On the floor, House members this week take up two major spending bills— transportation and commerce, justice, and science (CJS)— as well as a farm bill that, in contrast to the energy bill, has broad support among industry lobbyists. The Senate takes up a higher education reauthorization bill.
But behind the scenes, lobbyists describe a furious effort under way to shape energy legislation in the final stretch before August recess.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week met with “oil patch” members, often the most conservative elements of her diverse caucus, to try to smooth over intra-party differences that are delaying one of the party’s biggest priorities.
Pelosi urged the members to try to work with Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, to find compromise on his energy bill, one of several measures likely to be linked together on the floor.
Oil and gas lobbyists have never been thrilled about Rahall’s contribution. Titles 1 and 2 of the bill would repeal sections of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 designed to encourage more domestic production. But energy lobbyists disagree over how aggressively to lobby against those sections.Blue Dogs: Green, Gonzales, Melancon, and Matheson“There are some in industry that would go along with a compromise and some in the industry think [the Rahall bill] is so bad that they wouldn’t go along with any compromise,” said one Democratic energy lobbyist, who argues for flexibility.
Even assuming the House bill passes, “there is still a long way to go,” the lobbyist said, referring to the conference with the Senate. The Senate is seen as largely supportive of the energy provisions that passed two years ago.
Marc Smith, executive director for the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, said he doubted a compromise could be found.
“I don’t think there is any way to fix those two titles,” Smith said. “Both would be counterproductive to America’s energy security.”
Smith plans to come to Washington later this week to lobby against the bill.
Environmental groups are lobbying just as hard in support of the legislation, arguing that the Rahall measure is needed to ensure adequate environmental safeguards.
As among industry lobbyists, there are apparently divisions on Capitol Hill among House Blue Dogs, the group of moderate to conservative members that business often reaches out to in times of crisis.Will There Be a Vote?Reps. Gene Green and Charlie Gonzalez, two Texas Democrats, are viewed as being more amenable to a compromise. In contrast, Democratic Reps. Charles Melancon of Louisiana and Jim Matheson of Utah are “leading a more aggressive stance,” according to another Democratic energy lobbyist.
Robin Winchell, Melancon’s spokeswoman, said her boss favors an amendment to strike the first two titles of the Rahall bill. The titles are “too detrimental to his district,” Winchell said.
But Melancon is working to find some compromise, Winchell said, adding that the staffs of the congressman and the Speaker are in daily conversation.
In the meeting with members last week, Pelosi restated her intention of having an energy bill on the floor before recess. The oil and gas provisions are just one obstacle.Out of ControlThe party is also split on how aggressively to raise fuel mileage standards for cars and trucks, a debate in which Blue Dogs are again playing a key role.
Given the uncertainty and the upcoming debate on the spending measures, the farm bill and a children’s health insurance measure, the deadline for energy legislation could once again slip, lobbyists said.
While there is an art to lobbying against something without causing a lasting bitterness among your opponents, who may soon be your friends, the oil and gas industry has never been shy about signaling the party it prefers.“The industry is dominated by Republicans. There is no getting around that,” a Democratic energy lobbyist said.
Still, even an industry that gave 80 percent of its contributions to the GOP the past three cycles is not monolithic. With Democrats in control of Congress, campaign contributions are moving closer to an even split.
Part of the division within the industry is due to the fact that oil and gas companies often are divided among themselves.
Large, integrated oil companies are more focused on a tax package that may pass separately or as part of the energy policy provisions, energy lobbyists said, leaving the fight over Rahall’s measures to smaller, so-called “independents” that do most of the domestic drilling. The tax package would block companies from claiming a manufacturing tax credit that is worth more than ten billion to oil companies over the next ten years.
Agribusiness Likes The Farm Bill
There are no similar divisions within the agribusiness community to hamper passage of the farm bill, which the House Agriculture Committee passed unanimously last week.Although there was nervousness about how steep the income limits on farm subsidies would cut, the final compromise that Pelosi fashioned with Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) appears to have won support from the majority of commodity groups.
Jon Doggett, a lobbyist for the National Corn Growers Association, said his group is “very supportive” of the bill. The measure includes an association-backed reform that bases payments on revenues instead of the market price of corn, as current policy dictates. Basing payments on farm revenues “provides stability when it’s needed most,” Doggett said.
Pew Center: Voters Demand Stronger CAFE Standards 2
With a vote on CAFE legislation in the House expected to come next week, the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency today released new bipartisan polling in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Michigan that pulled from more than 30 congressional districts. The surveys found overwhelming voter support for the U.S. House of Representatives to pass CAFE legislation at least as strong as those passed by the U.S. Senate in June. One particular district surveyed was John Dingell’s, Michigan-15.
The polls compared the elements of the Markey-Platts bill (HR 1506) with those of the industry-supported Hill-Terry bill (HR 2927), and found overwhelming, across-the-board support for Markey-Platts across all demographic groups (partisanship, income, type of car, age, etc.). Voters just don’t buy the industry arguments against CAFE standards, believing that cars will continue to be safe and affordable and that the American auto industry and auto workers will be better off as they will be forced to innovate.
As Bill McInturff, the GOP pollster said in the briefing, “There’s really strong Republican support for higher standards, do it quicker, make it binding.” Voters see this as an economic, environmental, national security issue, and would feel better about Congress and their own representative if strong legislation is passed.
Voters in Dingell’s district look like the voters elsewhere.
The pollsters deliberately avoided global warming because they see it as a partisan issue.
Districts surveyed by The Mellman Group (D) and Public Opinion Strategies® July 13-16:
- OH-4, 6, 9, 11, 12 ,13, 17, 18 (Jordan, Tubbs Jones, Tiberi, Sutton, Ryan, Space)
- TN-1, 5, 6, 8 (Davis, Cooper, Gordon, Tanner)
- KY-3, 6 (Yarmuth, Chandler)
- PA-1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 17 (Brady, English, Altmire, Kanjorski, Murtha, Holden)
- NC-2, 3, 7, 11, 12 (Etheridge, Jones, McIntyre, Shuler, Watt)
- FL-2, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25 (Boyd, Bilirakis, Mahoney, Meek, Ros-Lehtinen, Wasserman Schultz, Klein, Diaz-Balart)
- MI-15 (Dingell)
Farm Bill Markup
The House Agriculture Committee voted Wednesday to ban federal subsidies to farmers with incomes averaging more than $1 million a year and stop farmers from collecting payments for multiple farm businesses.CQ: Pelosi Eyes Pre-Recess Vote on Farm BillOnly farmers whose incomes exceed $2.5 million a year are now disqualified from such aid.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been taking a hard look at moving the farm bill through the House in a make-or-break week just before August recess. But given the competing priorities, there are no guarantees.CQ: Labeling Fight Put Off As Farm Bill Markup Proceeds
Food labeling advocates and meat packers have been given a week to strike a deal on mandatory country-of-origin labeling, temporarily averting what was expected to be a heated debate over the hot-button issue.
More coverage at the individual hearing pages (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
To continue consideration of H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill
From CQ.com, coverage of Thursday’s markup:
Passed by voice vote:- An amendment by Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio, that would give broadband companies that bring services to rural areas 35 years to repay Agriculture Department loans. Currently, loans are typically paid off in 10 to 15 years.
- An amendment by Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that would create a preference within USDA loan programs for projects that process and distribute locally.
- An amendment by Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, D-S.D., that would set aside federal dollars to help public television stations in rural areas upgrade equipment.
- An amendment by Adrian Smith, R-Neb., that would include ethanol by-product utilization as an objective of USDA alternative energy research.
- An amendment by Conaway that would add goat meat to the list of products that should be included under the country-of-origin labeling law.
- an amendment by Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., that would have allowed states to hire outside contractors to administer food stamp programs.
To continue consideration of H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill
From CQ.com, summaries of the amendment votes at the markup session:
On the conservation front:
Farmers who earn too much to qualify for payments under the bil would be barred from receiving payments under farmland conservation programs, which worries environmentalists.Amendments passed:“Prohibiting and limiting large commercial farmers, in particular, from participating in conservation programs makes no sense,” said Scott Faber, who directs Environmental Defense’s farm policy campaign. “Large commercial farmers are more likely to participate in conservation programs and manage a disproportionately large share of the landscape.”
- The “language barring farmers who make more than $1 million in annual adjusted gross income from collecting government subsidies, and also eliminating payments to those who earn $500,000 to $1 million a year if less than 67 percent of that income comes from farming” was amended by voice vote to “lift limits on marketing loans, which provide short-term loans so farmers can pay their bills until they sell their harvested crops. Aides said this concession by Peterson won support from Southern lawmakers, who worried that the bill would otherwise hurt cotton and rice growers.”
- An amendment by Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., that would make federal dollars available to expand foreign markets for tobacco. The panel adopted the amendment 14-10, with Peterson’s support. North Carolina Republican Robin Hayes warned that without the support for U.S. growers, Chinese growers would dominate the tobacco industry. North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy predicted the amendment would fail on the House floor. He said it “would endure withering criticism for using U.S. dollars to encourage other areas of the world to smoke.”
- An amendment by Tim Walz, D-Minn., that would make it easier for farmers growing organic crops to enroll in the Conservation Security Program.
- An amendment by Nick Lampson, D-Texas, that would create a one-time incentive program to encourage the market growth of oilseeds, which are lower in trans-fats.
- An amendment by Sam Graves, R-Mo., that would bar farmers or companies defrauding the Agriculture Department from participating in the agency’s programs.
- An amendment by K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, that would prevent the Agriculture Department from writing subsidy checks smaller than $25. It costs the department too much to write checks for smaller amounts, Conaway said.
- An amendment by Jim Costa, D-Calif., that would require 50 percent of funding in the Regional Water Enhancement Program to be spent on new water preservation projects. Waterways in California and elsewhere could benefit from those federal dollars, Costa said.
Provisions of H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill
From Pacific Views live coverage:
The first House Agriculture Committee markup session on the 2007 Farm Bill began with Rep. Collin Peterson’s opening statement, followed by everyone else’s. Peterson said that Americans were fortunate to enjoy low, stable food prices, and food that meets the highest standards of quality and safety.No markup, or voting on specific amendments, actually took place during today’s session. The last changes to the legislation weren’t made until late last night, and today was the first chance most members got to see the final versions, though Rep. Peterson said that the changes were minor in comparison to the version released a little over a week ago.
Peterson said that listening sessions all over the country indicated that the 2002 Farm Bill was popular and regarded as successful. Building from that as a platform, changes Peterson described as departing from 2002 policies included increased spending on research, investment in nutrition, and help for new farmers. He said it was also the first time there was dedicated baseline funding support for fruits and vegetables, as well as a hard cap on payments under the commodity and conservation programs, such that no one with an adjusted gross income of a million dollars or more is eligible.
Peterson further said that there would be a main version of the bill that strictly adhered to paygo, pay-as-you-go, budget guidelines. Other items not covered by this baseline funding would be included in a separate bill that would need to have budget offsets found for it.
Go to Pacific Views for full coverage.