 |
||
| February 17, 2006 | ||
In this Issue
|
Farm Bill Schedule Tied to Hearings; Bills to Be Written Spring ‘07Senior staff of both House and Senate Agriculture Committees told a commodity group audience in Arizona this week they expect that once respective committee hearings conclude – both around the country and in Washington – serious farm bill drafting will begin, likely in the early spring of 2007. However, some insiders contend if the Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) talks continue to drag on with no appreciable progress, that schedule will ramp up considerably. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns this week told the USDA Outlook Forum audience he continues to oppose extension of the 2002 Farm Bill, adding Congress should proceed to write new omnibus farm legislation even if the WTO talks are not completed. He said delaying a new farm bill or simply extending the 2002 bill “hand(s) the farm bill over to the WTO.” House Agriculture Committee field hearings are set to wrap up by August 1, and Washington, DC hearings will begin this fall. The Senate will also hold hearings this summer and fall. Both staffers told the National Cotton Council that new players in the farm bill debate – notably international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) – are changing the debate since they’re far more sophisticated about existing programs and how they relate to international trade negotiations. These NGOs are also building support among non-ag members of Congress to change traditional farm payment programs. Also on the table are disaster payments. Congress is hesitant to enact legislation paying farmers for disasters on top of current program payments, so ag committee members on both sides of the Hill are talking about reinventing a permanent USDA disaster program. Most permanent disaster assistance programs were eliminated in the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill. Anti-Bush Budget Rhetoric Ramps Up; Johanns Defends Budget PlanTwo powerful Senate committee chairmen this week stepped up criticism of President Bush’s FY2007 budget proposal, with the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) – who happens to be past chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee – saying he opposes the President’s proposed cuts in ag spending. On the House side, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, sent a letter to Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA), chair of the House Budget Committee, asking that no additional cuts in farm programs be included in the budget process during the last year of the 2002 Farm Bill. Meanwhile, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, appearing before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee this week, defended the White House budget plan in the face of heavy bipartisan criticism. Earlier this week, Johanns said the Administration did not propose additional funding to rebuild the Mississippi River locks and dams system, referring to the move as a “tough budgetary decision.” Appropriators’ criticism centered on the fact many of the Bush proposals for USDA’s spending are recommendations which have failed in previous years. Also at issue was an administration proposal to cut specialty crop programs, which Reps. Sam Farr (D-CA) and John Doolittle (R-CA) said may result in a political backlash against pending trade negotiations. Johanns also acknowledged many of the user fees proposed in the Administration budget cannot be implemented by appropriators and he will be working with OMB on authorizing legislation that will be sent to the appropriate committees. Meanwhile, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, said the proposed $310-million reduction in EPA spending from FY2006 falls too heavily on clean water and regional water programs, action “that will not be sustained throughout the process.” Inhofe wants EPA to revise its budget request to include reductions “that stand a reasonable chance of being implemented,” referring to Bush requests ignored in previous budget debates. Senate Takes on NanotechnologyOn Wednesday the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee held a hearing on “Developments in Nanotechnology.” Chaired by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the hearing focused on the benefits of nanotechnology and the new products coming out of this research. Among the witnesses was Dr. J. Clarence Davies, senior advisor, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. Davies discussed his January 2006, published report on the current regulatory structure of nanotech. He said while federal agencies maintain they have an adequate existing structure to regulate new products and technology, they do not. “Nanotechnology may hold the key to meeting many of the most serious problems our society faces, especially in the areas of medicine, energy production, environmental remediation, and clean manufacturing. It potentially could have huge economic and social benefits,” according to Davies. “But existing regulatory structure does not provide adequate protection for human health and the environment. It suffers from gaps in statutory authority, inadequate resources, and a poor fit between some of the regulatory programs and the characteristics of nanotechnology.” “Given all of the shortcomings of the existing system,” he said, “I believe that it is in everyone’s interest to start thinking about what a new law focused on nanotechnology might look like, while aggressively closing gaps in the current system, especially in areas such as cosmetics.” Sen. George Allen (R-VA) said people need to be educated on what nanotechnology does so they do not “freak out” like they have done with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Allen said he often hears from people that FDA needs to continue to receive the resources necessary to evolve and handle new products. More information on the hearing can be found at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1736. NASA Budget Comes Under FireNASA Administrator Michael Griffith came under fire Thursday for the Administration’s proposed FY2007 budget. Appearing before the House Science Committee, Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and ranking member Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) questioned NASA’s commitment to funding scientific research. Boehlert said he is uneasy about the budget since it is bad for space science and worse for earth science. The White House budget cuts every forward looking, truly futuristic program of NASA in order to fund operational and development programs that are simply doing what NASA has already been doing or has done before, he said. The ball is now in Congress’ court and Boehlert said it “faces tough choices.” Gordon agreed with Boehlert, adding it has been almost two years since the President announced the Mars exploration initiative, but the White House has never sent a budget to Congress covering all the costs the President laid out at that time. Gordon said choices need to be made – whether that means increasing overall funding, slowing or stopping the exploration initiative or seeing if meaningful alternatives to the initiative might be more appropriate. He does not want Congress signing up for another big, under-funded hardware program that promises more, does less and saddles the U.S. with even more under-funded NASA initiatives. Focusing on research applicable to the American consumer, Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) urged NASA to continue to focus on research aiding the American people. For instance, people are familiar with products like Tang and microcomputers – things that came out of NASA research. But Gutknecht said it is hard for American’s to see real science breakthroughs today. Griffin testified it is strategically more damaging
to delay development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to replace
the aging shuttle then to delay science missions. He said the
changed emphasis to manned space flight is a desire to do different
things than have already been done because it is strategically important
for the U.S. According to Griffin, the next three to four years will
be a speed bump, but we have to get out of what we have been doing
and limit collateral damage. Public Confusion on Mercury in FishSome scientists who think it is important to eat tuna and farmed salmon for their omega-3 fatty acids, and those who think consumers should consider contaminants when deciding which fish to eat, have been sparring in the press of late. The New York Times this week featured a story on the ongoing debate regarding the risk of contaminants, “Advisories on Fish and the Pitfalls of Good Intent.” Tuna is the subject of a big part of the debate. Some studies suggest higher levels of mercury in large tuna such as albacore. But omega-3's, important nutrients in tuna, can prevent sudden heart attacks. In 2004 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) warned about the hazards of mercury for women of childbearing age and young children. The agencies said those groups should eat no more than six ounces of albacore tuna a week, but could safely eat up to 12 ounces per week of low-mercury fish like shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock and catfish. At the same time the agencies continued to recommend that those groups limit their intake of shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish. Concerns about farmed salmon are more recent with the feed given farmed salmon having been shown to contain contaminants from time-to-time. For the full article go to www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/dining/15well.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Appropriators Told Final BSE Rule To Be Out By July 1Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach told House ag appropriators this week he expects his agency to publish its final amended BSE feed rule by July 1. His estimate came in the wake of critical questioning from Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), ranking member of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, which has oversight over FDA appropriations. De Lauro said former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson promised an interim final revised rule in 2004 and nearly three years later, only a proposal has been published. USDA Delivers Report On Beef Shipment to Japanese; Frustration Continues Over Japanese Attitude On Resuming TradeA comprehensive report on how "ineligible" SRMs were included in a veal shipment to Japan last month was delivered by USDA to the Japanese government Feb. 17. At the same time, Japanese Agriculture Minister Shoichi Nakagawa said Japan will not change its beef safety standards even if the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) relaxes its recommendations on beef trade. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, in a 7 a.m. press briefing Feb. 17, said he expects the Japanese to have questions about the report and to likely seek reinspection of some U.S. facilities certified to ship beef to Japan, but would not give a time line on resumption of trade. The 475-page report, sent to Capitol Hill today as well, is posted at www.fsis.usda.gov. Conveyed to the Japanese is a document including both the Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) investigation and a separate investigation by USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), done at the department’s request. The documents included 11 recommendations from both agencies. In addition, 15 additional recommendations were made to further strengthen compliance from both the USDA side and the industry side of shipping beef to Japan. Meanwhile, a delegation of Japanese lawmakers reported in Tokyo this week that U.S. plants they visited in Kansas recently appeared to be processing beef meat “perfectly.” But they continued their harsh criticism over the “ineligible” shipment of beef out of a New York company that contained SRM, adding shipments will not resume until a “thorough explanation from the U.S.” is received and evaluated. This latest delegation was made up of members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Their report contradicted a report from a delegation made up of members of the opposition Democratic Party, which said some U.S. facilities did not completely remove SRM during processing. The companies visited have protested that characterization publicly. Japan Kills 45 Cows Suspected of Having BSEA herd of 45 beef cows, all on the same farm, are suspected of having BSE and will be destroyed, the Japanese government announced. The cows are located on the island of Hokkaido where an animal died of BSE in January. Following that animal’s death, the government forbade the farm from moving any of its more than 400 animals. Japan’s policy is that any animal given the same feed and raised in the same pen for the first year of life with a cow that tests positive for BSE must be destroyed as an infected animal. Calves born within two years of a BSE outbreak on their home farm are also considered suspect infected animals. Livestock Regulation Bill Introduced As Farm Bill PlaceholderSens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) this week introduced a bill that would reorganize and tighten USDA programs regulating the livestock industry. The bill, called a “marker” for 2007 Farm Bill debate by Harkin, would create an USDA Office of Special Counsel to investigate and prosecute violations of the Packers & Stockyards Act that restrict competition. The special counsel would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Harkin, and his Iowa colleague Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), have proposed creation of the special counsel’s office for several years. States Don’t Have to Add Ethanol, MTBE to Gas: EPAStates will no longer have to add ethanol or MTBE to gasoline as a means of controlling emissions, a move experts say will save up to eight cents per gallon, according to new rules released this week by EPA. The new rules eliminate a requirement of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) requiring gasoline used in urban heavy smog areas to contain at least 2% oxygen by weight. Most states used ethanol or MTBE to meet the oxygenate requirement. The change comes in the wake of requests by California, New York and Connecticut based on their bans of MTBE after it was found in groundwater. These states contend they were forced to use ethanol which worsened pollution problems. The rules go into effect nationally May 6, and in California 60 days after they’re published in the Federal Register, based on California’s unique air pollution status under the CAA. Major ag states affected by the new EPA rule include California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Truck Group Supports Limiting Highway Truck SpeedsThe American Trucking Assn. (ATA) this week endorsed
action to limit the maximum speed of big trucks at the time of manufacture
to 68 mph, a move ATA said will reduce the number and severity of speed-related
crashes. The installation of speed “governors” to control
maximum speed follows an ATA study of the issue which found nearly
75% of the trucks evaluated already had speed governors and that most
were set at 70 mph or lower. New BillsA number of new bills have been introduced. Click here to send a request for a copy of the text or more information about the bill. S.2307 S.2309 H.R.4756 H.R.4774 H.R.4775 Inside
Track is produced as a service to clients of Policy Directions,
Inc., a Washington, DC-based government relations/strategic
government communications firm founded in 1995, specializing in customized
advocacy on health care; food; biomedical research; biotechnology,
human drug, and medical device regulation; federal nutrition
policy
and programs; and environmental policies and programs. For
more information about PDI, please visit www.policydirections.com or
e-mail info@poldir.com. |
|
| Policy
Directions Inc | 818 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 950 | Washington,
DC 20006
| (202) 776-0071 | info@poldir.com |
||
