The real world impacts of sequestration – across-the-board $85-billion (2.5-5 percent) cuts in federal spending implemented January 1 – are being felt, causing the hard-line approach to program cuts and employee furloughs to unwind as citizen outrage registers in Washington, D.C. The anger isn’t translating necessarily into a call to end the cuts, but rather for the Administration and Congress to agree on how agencies can get creative in implementing the reductions. The spotlight was squarely focused on the impacts of sequestration on the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to keep air traffic controllers on the job without furloughs, as well as keeping “moderate-sized” airports operational. The agency and airlines confirmed more than 1,200 flights across the country faced significant delays on Monday – and could increase to 6,700 delays per week – because of controller furloughs. But as the airlines and pilots union brought suit against the government to end the furloughs, the White House quickly dropped its demand for “revenue enhancements” to offset the sequester cuts, allowing the Senate to move quickly to approve legislation to let the FAA shift $253 million from other accounts to keep its full complement of controllers working. The House was expected to approve the bill – after lots of speech-making – and have it on the President’s desk before a week-long recess. The Department of Justice also said it had found a way to trim its budget without furloughs, but the Food and Drug Administration again warned its share of the budget trimming at $209 million means the agency will conduct fewer food safety inspections and delay implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, told USAToday.
As expected, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said she’ll hold a Senate Agriculture Committee markup of a 2013 five-year comprehensive Farm Bill in early May, coinciding with the House Agriculture Committee’s announced May 15 markup of its bill. Stabenow’s announcement echoed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) instructions to the Senate that the chamber must act on the Farm Bill and the water resources bill by the end of May to clear enough floor time for consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. Speaking at the Democrat Steering & Outreach Committee’s Rural Summit in Washington, D.C., Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), both members of the ag panel, said they’re confident their committee will move a Farm Bill quickly and that the package will strongly resemble the legislative package approved last year by the full Senate. However, there are two big hurdles for the Senate Agriculture Committee to overcome. The first is garnering southern Senator support for a rewrite of the Farm Bill commodity title that treats both Midwestern and Southern producers “equally,” according to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR). The other is budget savings, with last year’s bill scored at saving about $23 billion, but that same bill – given a 2013 economy and U.S. Department of Agriculture spending – would only save about $13 billion, says the Congressional Budget Office. On the House side, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, says his May 15 committee markup is on track, acknowledging the markup will build off the panel’s approved 2012 bill. He said there would be “adjustments” in program rewrites and previous savings to reflect CBO scoring changes, but the final product will provide “choice, save money, we’re going to do it in a bipartisan way, we’re going to have a safety net for all crops and all regions, and we’re going to make sure our fellow citizens who need help have something to eat,” referencing cuts to federal food stamp programs likely to be part of the program.
Even with just about every farmer in America saying the federal crop insurance program is critical to any income safety net designed as part of a 2013 Farm Bill, the program is still the favorite target for budget hawks looking to trim Farm Bill spending. And as deliberations over a new five-year Farm Bill move into high gear next month, protecting the current crop insurance program will prove tougher. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported federal crop insurance indemnities paid to farmers for 2012 crop losses rose to a record $17 billion, primarily due to drought damage in the Plains and across the Midwest. The previous record was $10.8 billion in 2011. Supporters say the $9-billion-a-year crop insurance program has already taken its fair share of cuts. However, critics, including several environment and consumer groups, hoping to see dollars from crop insurance spent on conservation and nutrition programs, are zeroing in on cutting insurance product premium subsidies for farmers. A report released indicates that since 2001, the federal government has paid up to two-thirds of farmer insurance premiums, with the majority going to large producers of corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton. These critics want to see premium subsidies tied to conservation compliance, a stance not universally popular across the country; only the National Farmers Union publicly supports this approach. In a report written for CQ News, a Capitol Hill online news service, Dr. Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State University economics professor, contends increases in premium subsidies have led to an equal increase in farmer purchase of “champagne” crop insurance products, and he contends the record indemnities reported last week would be half that total had not premium subsidies increased in 2000 when the federal program was last updated. During the floor debate on the Senate’s 2012 Farm Bill, an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) aimed at cutting premium subsidies 15 percent to farmers making more thanSen. Richard Durbin (D,reiculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. $750,000 was approved, and some are talking now about making all crop insurance subsidies dependent on both conservation program compliance and an adjusted gross income formula. This year, Senate legislation to reduce the premium subsidy by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) would save $40 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, says Babcock. Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) said cutting premium subsidies means only very large, wealthy farmers will be able to afford insurance, calling the current program fiscally responsible and successful.
Calling it the “Dairy Freedom Act,” Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and David Scott (D-GA) introduced their alternative to the Dairy Security Act as part of a new 2013 Farm Bill. At the same time, both House and Senate members introduced legislation to make the lives of beginning farmers a little easier by providing loan assistance and other services. Goodlatte called the bill a “true compromise” on dairy policy, saying the bill provides a “variable safety net without supply management or new administrative fees for farmers,” a shot at the program adopted in the House Agriculture Committee’s 2012 Farm Bill championed by panel ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and the National Milk Producers Federation. The Dairy Security Act is built off a margin buy-down premise predicated on the cost of “feed” – bulk commodity prices as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture – as well as supply management controls that have proved controversial in the Upper Midwest, South and West. Bill language can be found at http://www.thomas.loc.gov/ by typing “Dairy Freedom Act” into the search box.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, wrapped up its third hearing on the bipartisan Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill, a process that has flushed out possible amendments to the legislation as it gets ready to hit the Senate floor in June. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee said it will not bring a comprehensive bill to the floor, but will act on immigration reform through a series of targeted bills – many likely mirroring sections of the Senate bill – designed to force chamber votes on specific issues, even though its own bipartisan drafting group favors a single bill. House leadership says moving several shorter bills will allow important programs such as border security to be implemented and more controversial programs left for longer debate. The first bill likely to be considered by the House panel will tackle a new agriculture guest worker program along with mandatory universal employer use of the E-verify system. The Senate Judiciary Committee will next move to markup May 9 on the immigration package, a process promising to be long and difficult. The Gang of Eight Senators has publicly promised to defeat any amendments designed to weaken or kill the effort, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she believes the ag worker section of the bill is as tight as it can be given the ag/union negotiations that produced the compromise language on wage rates and a new visa program for seasonal and contract farm workers. The Agriculture Workforce Coalition, representing the nation’s largest ag grower groups ranging from dairy producers to ag cooperatives to crop and specialty crop growers, as well as the United Farm Workers, praised the ag worker section of the bill during Judiciary Committee hearings. Feinstein says the bill will lead to 700,000 to 1 million farm workers – and their immediate families – who can prove they’ve worked in the U.S. for two years, receiving new “blue card” guest worker credentials. If these workers continue to work in agriculture for five years, they would be eligible for permanent residence or green card status. Expected Senate amendments to be offered during markup or during floor consideration include language to ensure immigrants who may one day commit terrorist acts don’t gain access to the U.S., a post-Boston Marathon bombings effort; a move to break the bill into several pieces of legislation to ensure critical border security measures are not delayed over the politics of other sections; increased spending and specific instructions to the Administration on how to gauge border security and limits on Department of Homeland Security discretion; limits on misdemeanor convictions for potential immigrants; improved visa exit/entry monitoring to ensure the current 40 percent of visa holders who do not return home after their visas expire are caught; implementation of the universal E-verify program in less than five years; language to allow for sponsorship of same-sex partners for visas; and protection for children of illegal immigrants whose parents are “caught up” in deportation proceedings.
The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, joined by three committee members, sent a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, saying while they support agency administrative efforts to work cooperatively with industry to more strictly control the use of antibiotics used in livestock feed and water, they want FDA to quickly finalize its plans for eliminating antibiotic growth promotion/feed efficiency label claims, they want to see a final program for enhanced use of the Veterinary Feed Directive program, and they want to see a timeline for creation of an “antimicrobial data collection strategy” as promised by FDA last year. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA), HELP chairman; Lamar Alexander, ranking member; Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) told the agency they want to see FDA consult with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention to determine “data needs and if additional data could be made public” under the feed sections of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. They want to see a report on their request along with analyzed data already collected by the agency, stressing they don’t want the agency releasing any proprietary or personal identifiable information on drug and feed companies or individual producers. The letter is a political compromise by Harkin and Alexander and the other three Senators who sought to amend the pending Animal Drug User Fee Act with the reporting language, but were refused. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, introduced his own antibiotic reporting bill and wants it included in the House version of ADUFA.
The likely Federal Register publication date for the proposed feed/pet food performance standards rule under the Food Safety Modernization Act is still unknown even though it’s been under Office of Management & Budget for several months. However, in a related development, a federal court ordered the Food and Drug Administration to publish a public timeline for its FSMA rulemaking. The District Court for the Northern District of California ordered FDA to propose new deadlines for rulemakings in deciding a lawsuit brought by consumer groups over of the delays. The court said FDA is in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and FSMA because it is ignoring mandated deadlines set by both laws. However, part of the decision is that FDA has to consult with the consumer groups in developing and publishing the deadline, and their agreement must be reported to the court by May 20. FDA must now decide whether to appeal the ruling or follow the court-ordered deadlines.
While several industry groups filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, 33 Senators sent the agency a letter saying EPA intent to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act “dramatically expand(s) the scope of NEPA, and is inconsistent with the intentions of the statute.” Having failed in Congress to rein in EPA on greenhouse gas regulation, the industry groups petitioned the nation’s high court to review EPA authority, arguing the agency can’t require permits for new industrial boilers with heavy greenhouse gas emissions because greenhouse gas is not specified under the CAA. Last spring, however, the same groups were told that argument doesn’t fly by a D.C. Circuit Court, and that EPA’s decision to move against greenhouse gas emissions was “unambiguously correct.” Another related petition to the court supports the industry effort, contending the circuit court ruling is flawed because it says EPA can regulate greenhouse gas “without regard to whether the adopted regulations ameliorate the risks identified as the basis for the regulations.” Regarding the Senate letter, the Senators zeroed in on an EPA draft guidance issued early in 2010 “outlining the Administration’s vision for expanding NEPA to consider greenhouse gas emissions.” The Senators said this “vision” ignores NEPA’s status as a procedural statute “focused on giving federal agencies and the public a better understanding of the environmental impacts of a project,” and chided the agency for trying to use NEPA to “mitigate GHG emissions.” The 33 Senators said, “Congress has rejected all efforts to legislatively regulate the climate, and just last month during Senate budget votes twice rejected a carbon tax … the Administration is attempting to use NEPA as a backdoor method to pursue a policy preference that cannot be passed through Congress.” EPA was also told the draft guidance “flies in the face of the President’s publicly stated goal” of streamlining the agency permitting process.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, and Sen. John Barasso (R-WY) corralled 30 other Senators on a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency telling it to withdraw its draft guidance to expand its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to all “waters of the United States.” The Senators said if not withdrawn, EPA could begin to regulate isolated wetlands, intermittent streams and other non-navigable waters. “If we don’t stop this extreme idea, EPA will have virtually unlimited regulatory control over all ‘wet’ areas within a state,” they said. “Responsible landowners and state officials, not Washington bureaucrats, should have authority over these areas.” Barasso called the EPA draft guidance “an unprecedented Washington power grab,” Vitter says the agency must stick to formal rulemaking procedures.
While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he wants final floor action on the Senate version of reauthorization of federal water resources law, four Senators said the bill, as written and approved by the Committee on Environment & Public Works, infringes on Appropriations Committee turf. The four Senators stopped short of saying they’ll block the bill from going to the floor, but will take action to “modify the bill as it moves through the legislative process.” The four said the environment committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA), acted in such a way as to have “serious, negative, unintended consequences” when it included a provision to ensure $1.6 billion authorized for harbor dredging and maintenance is actually spent on those tasks, part of a move to try and cut Army Corps of Engineers spending below last year’s appropriation. Technically, this would take a formal waiver by the full Senate, and could lead to a domino effect requiring a $700-million cut to other programs within that appropriations account to pay for the harbor fund. The letter was signed by appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), ranking member Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN).
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and the powerhouse behind Senate tax reform efforts, announced he will not seek re-election in 2014. At the same time, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), just re-elected in 2012, says he may choose to run for governor of Florida, but has not decided yet. Baucus is the latest senior Democrat to announce he’s stepping down, and his retirement is seen as accelerating the likelihood of tax reform during this Congress.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-To-Know Act, to require the Food and Drug Administration to label all genetically engineered (GE) food products, including those that incorporate ingredients made from GE grains and GE salmon. As with other state initiatives, this bill would require livestock, poultry and pet foods to be labeled. Boxer introduced S. 809 along with several cosponsors, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). DeFazio introduced H.R. 1699 with 22 original cosponsors on the House side. According to Boxer, the bill is also supported by various coalitions, businesses and farmers – the National Farmers Union has endorsed the bill – which all agree consumers deserve more information about the food they buy. If the bill passes, the U.S. will join more than 64 countries worldwide which have similar GE labeling laws in place. During the 2012 floor consideration of the Senate’s Farm Bill, Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tried to amend the bill with language allowing states to set their GE labeling regulations. That effort failed 24-76. The joint press release issued by Boxer and DeFazio can be found here.