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.
Live-blogging debate on earmarks
I’m updating the entry on the energy and water earmarks debate as events progress, and updating that entry with more information about the earmarks as I pore over the document.
Agriculture Markup - FY 2008 Appropriations
Business meeting to markup proposed legislation making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008
Debate on 2008 Energy and Water Earmarks 1
The House will have the floor debate on the $1.1 billion in member earmarks to the FY 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill (HR 2641) approved last week by the House Appropriations Committee in a voice vote.
The measure, House Report 110-185 Part 2 (full pdf), amounts to about 3 percent of the $31.6 billion the bill would provide to the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation and several independent agencies.
The committee estimates that $3.4 billion of the bill goes to elements dealing with climate change, $1 billion more than in the President’s budget request. More on the original bill below the fold.
- $158 million for DOE Climate Change Research an increase of $20 million (by way of comparison, $428 million is going to fusion research)
- $1.6 billion for renewable energy and energy conservation RDD&D programs, an increase of $528 million over the budget request.
- $195 million for hydrogen fuel cells, a decrease of $18.4 million below the budget request
- $250 million for biomass R&D, an increase of $71 million
- $200 million for solar energy programs, an increase of $52 million
- $57.5 million for wind energy systems, an increase of $17.4 million
- $44.3 million for geothermal (not in the budget request at all)
- $22 million for hydropower (not in the budget request)
- $235 million for hybrid vehicles and related automotive R&D, an increase of $59 million
- $146 million for building efficiency programs, an increase of $60 million
- $57 million for efficiency programs for energy-intensive industries, an increase of $11 million
- $27 million for Federal Energy Management Programs, an increase of $10 million
- $246 million for weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of $102 million
- $10 million for international efforts addressing greenhouse gas reduction technologies, energy efficiency, international standards, and energy security for continuing dialogue to include western nations, and countries with emerging economies. Within the International Renewable Energy Program account, no more than $2 million may be spent on the Asia-Pacific Initiative.
There are 127 earmarks in energy efficiency and renewable energy, most in the $500K-$1.5 million range; 15 electricity delivery earmarks; 13 fossil energy research earmarks, including $1.45 million to the Coal Fuels Alliance in Kentucky and $1.5 million to the Stripper Well Consortium, and $2 million for carbon sequestration studies; 89 science earmarks, many unrelated to energy or water (a lot of hospitals).
- 1 PM: Debate begins on the earmarks. Rothman withdraws an earmark to North Bergen, New Jersey.
- 1:01 PM: Visclosky is talking about the earmark projects.
- 1:05 PM: Flake calls to remove a $1 million earmark on his district for the Achieving a College Education (ACE) program at Maricopa Community Colleges in the DOE Office of the Administrator’s budget.
- 1:09 PM: Ed Pastor defends the earmark.
- 1:15 PM: The earmark stands by a voice vote.
- 1:16 PM Flake calls to remove a $1 million earmark for the Nanosystems Initiative at the University of Rochester.
- 1:20 PM: The earmark stands by a voice vote.
- 1:22 PM: Flake calls to remove a $1 million earmark for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructures in Pennsylvania, which according to the certification letter, appears to be a pass-through to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, which has received many earmarks in previous years. Does the center exist?
- Visclosky At this time I do not know. If the center does not exist, it will not receive the money.
- 1:27 PM: The earmark stands; Flake calls for a recorded vote.
- 1:34 PM Hensarling (R-TX 5) calls to remove a $10.5 million earmark to the South Carolina HBCU Math and Science Initiative.
- 1:40 PM James Clyburn (D-SC 6, majority whip) defends the earmark.
- 1:45 PM The earmark stands; Hensarling calls for a recorded vote.
- 1:46 PM Hensarling calls to remove a $1 million earmark for the University of Dubuque Environmental Science Center. He talks about a letter from a disabled grandmother raising three children who can’t go to church because gas costs too much.
- 1:51 PM The earmark stands by a voice vote.
- 1:52 PM Hensarling calls to remove a $500,000 earmark for the Emmanuel College Center for Science Partnership. “Where does the madness stop?” “Shall we subsidize Girl Scout cookies?”
- 1:57 PM Capuano (D-MA 8) defends the earmark; it’s a private university in a private partnership with Merck.
- 1:58 PM Hensarling: Taxes are bad.
- 1:59 PM Capuano I don’t like paying taxes unless we use for wise purposes. If we’re so concerned with taxes, then why are we still in Iraq? All we’d have to do is shut down in Iraq for less than 30 seconds.”
- 2:00 PM The earmark stands; Hensarling calls for a recorded vote.
- 3:36 PM The earmark votes have been taken. The final bill is being presented for its passage.