<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Farm Bureau &#187; News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.illumen.org/farmbureau/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.illumen.org/farmbureau</link>
	<description>FBAct Insider - The Voice of Agriculture</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:34:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
				<item>
		<title>Federal agents visit Iowa farms that recalled eggs</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7461</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:34:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CNN</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7461</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Federal agents visited Hillandale Farms and Wright County Egg, which have recalled more than half a billion eggs in the wake of the salmonella outbreak, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The agents were at two Iowa locations on Tuesday, said Patricia El-Hinnawy.
She referred further questions to the U.S. attorney's office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A phone call to that office was not immediately returned Wednesday night.
]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Federal agents visited Hillandale Farms and Wright County Egg, which have recalled more than half a billion eggs in the wake of the salmonella outbreak, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman said Wednesday.

The agents were at two Iowa locations on Tuesday, said Patricia El-Hinnawy.

She referred further questions to the U.S. attorney's office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A phone call to that office was not immediately returned Wednesday night.

FDA investigators visited offices in New Hampton, Hillandale Farms spokeswoman Julie DeYoung said. She said she did not know how long they were there or if they took any material with them. The company is cooperating, DeYoung added.

Agents also traveled to a Wright County Egg facility in Galt.

"I can only confirm that, yes, there were FDA officials at the farm, and that we continue to fully cooperate with their review of the farm, as we have been doing throughout this process," said Wright County Egg spokeswoman Hinda Mitchell.

The criminal division of the FDA and the Justice Department are joining an investigation that goes beyond farm inspections, the Wall Street Journal quoted FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg as saying Wednesday.

"There is a formal investigation going on that extends beyond the FDA inspections that are focused on farm practice," she said. "We are pursuing it with our partners in law enforcement."

Hamburg declined to say whether Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have visited Wright County Egg facilities, the Journal said. The FBI's field office for Iowa did not immediately return a call.

Inspection reports released by the FDA earlier this week noted numerous violations at six farms operated by Wright County Egg and Quality Egg, which are owned by the same family, and three Hillandale Farms locations.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>U.S. fruit, vegetable exports will hit record, USDA says</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7459</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>thepacker.com</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[thepacker.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7459</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[U.S. growers will export a record $6.2 billion worth of fresh fruits and vegetables next year, up 5.1% from this year, on increasing demand from Canada, Japan and the European Union, according to a government report.

Fresh fruit and vegetable exports to Canada and Japan, and to a lesser extent the EU, “should continue to expand” [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[U.S. growers will export a record $6.2 billion worth of fresh fruits and vegetables next year, up 5.1% from this year, on increasing demand from Canada, Japan and the European Union, according to a government report.

Fresh fruit and vegetable exports to Canada and Japan, and to a lesser extent the EU, “should continue to expand” as the world’s economies recover from recession, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported.

Total U.S. horticultural exports in fiscal 2011, which begins Oct. 1, are also expected to hit an all-time high, climbing 7.5% from 2010 to $24.5 billion, according to the USDA.

Foreign markets for U.S. grain, meat, fruit and vegetable growers will continue to grow next year as Asia leads a global economic recovery, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a conference call after the release of the report.

“You’re seeing greater acceptance of the American brand in agriculture in 2010, and you’ll continue to see that in 2011,” Vilsack said. “We’re going to see more and more opportunities.”

The USDA’s export forecast follows Mexico’s decision earlier in August to expand a list of U.S. products subject to tariffs, as a trade dispute between the countries escalated.

Starting Aug. 18, Mexico assessed U.S. apples, grapefruit and oranges a 20% tariff, adding those to a list that now includes about a dozen fresh produce items. U.S. apricots, cabbage, cherries, grapes, pears, peas, potatoes and strawberries were already subject to tariffs, which Mexico initially imposed in March 2009.

The tariffs, stemming from the cancellation of a program allowing Mexican truck drivers to operate north of the border, have already cost U.S. growers business in one of their biggest markets, industry representatives have said.

Vilsack, during the Aug. 31 conference call, said there is an “ongoing effort” with Mexico’s government to resolve the dispute “as soon as possible,” citing recent discussions with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

“I can’t give you a specific time frame, but we’re working on this every day,” Vilsack said.

Overall, U.S. agricultural exports for 2011 are projected to rise 5.1% to $113 billion, the second-highest on record, as pork and poultry demand grows and Russia’s drought leads to stepped-up purchases of American grain, the USDA said.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Ethanol Co-Product Helps Increase Ag Exports</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7457</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>domesticfuel.com</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domesticfuel.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7457</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. agricultural exports picture continues to be a bright one thanks in part to more exports of the ethanol by-product dried distillers grains (DDGs).

In the latest USDA report on exports, the forecast for 2010 exports was increased to $107.5 billion, up $3 billion compared to the May estimate. Almost half of that gain was [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S. agricultural exports picture continues to be a bright one thanks in part to more exports of the ethanol by-product dried distillers grains (DDGs). 

In the latest USDA report on exports, the forecast for 2010 exports was increased to $107.5 billion, up $3 billion compared to the May estimate. Almost half of that gain was in the revised estimate for grain and feed exports – up $1.2 billion to $27.2 billion from the May forecast. Corn shipments are increased 1 million tons and $100 million, reflecting stronger shipments in recent months as demand for feed grains and feed products (especially DDGS) has been stronger than expected. “Agriculture is one of the few major sectors of the economy today that has a trade surplus, which we are now forecasting to be a little over $30 billion,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.. 

The forecast is even better for next year, up to $113 billion, very close to the record $115 in 2008, thanks to sharply higher unit values and volumes for wheat and corn, as well as increases in products like DDGs. “I think it’s an indication of the quality of what we’re producing, which I think has allowed us to aggressively market this product as sort of an offshoot of what’s taking place in the biofuels industry,” Vilsack said. “This is an untold and I think often under-appreciated aspect of our economy in terms of how productive American farmers are and how innovative we’ve become with what we grow and what we raise and how much more opportunity there is as we expand biofuel production, beginning to use other feedstocks. I think we’re just going to continue to see more and more of these kinds of opportunities, byproducts and co-products of the process being developed.”

Another reason for ethanol producers to attend the upcoming Export Exchange, sponsored by the US Grains Council and the Renewable Fuels Association, with the express purpose of getting buyers and sellers of DDGs in particular together. More than 170 international buyers of U.S. DDGS and coarse grains are scheduled to attend the event, including representatives from China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Vietnam – countries which have a major interest in DDGS. South Korea, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia account for two thirds of the forecast increase in agricultural exports this year compared to May.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>NCGA: Corn’s Benefits As Part Of Livestock Diet</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7455</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cattle Network</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cattle Network]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7455</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[In a world where the importance of a high-protein diet is widely recognized, consumers value the meat they eat and recognize the role it plays in keeping them healthy and strong. A lot of this has to do with what goes into the meat in the first place, and our food-sensitive culture often does not [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a world where the importance of a high-protein diet is widely recognized, consumers value the meat they eat and recognize the role it plays in keeping them healthy and strong. A lot of this has to do with what goes into the meat in the first place, and our food-sensitive culture often does not understand the role of grains in the livestock world.

“At National Corn Growers Association, many of our grower-leaders, myself included, have livestock feeding operations,” said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen. “I see the value every say of using corn as a natural, healthy and nutritious feed for our animals. Likewise, as someone involved in the industry, I see a lot of the myths that are out there about grain feed.”

In the first place, there is no clear division between “grass-fed” and “corn-fed.” Corn-fed beef actually spend most of their lives on a range or pasture, eating grass. At 9 to 12 months of age, they are moved to a feedlot for about four to six months, eating a balanced mixed meal of different grains hay, and forage. This allows them to grow more quickly.

“Grass-fed” cattle start the same way, but are finished with a diet of grass. Because it is hard to produce grass-fed beef in large quantities here in the United States, due to limited growing seasons, most grass-finished beef is imported from Australia and New Zealand where grass grows all year.

More details can be found on this fact sheet. What is essential to realize is that there is very little nutritional difference between the types of beef, and taste and tenderness tend to be better with grain-fed beef, as evidenced in a recent Time magazine taste test.

There is also an environmental benefit as well. The Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues issued a study in 2007 that found that beef produced with grains produces 40 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to organic grass-fed beef. When people are concerned about acreage and land use, that’s a good thing.

Of the 2010 corn harvest, the U.S. Department estimated that 5.4 billion bushels of corn will be used as livestock feed, along with an additional 1.5 billion bushels of distillers grains, a high-protein ethanol coproduct. That’s about 46 percent of the corn supply.

The distillers grains amount is important, because it is part of the corn that goes into ethanol production. This amount unfortunately is easily ignored by those who think that corn for ethanol takes corn away from livestock, which it does not. In fact, it puts important protein and nutrients into the food supply.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Senators Urge Russia to Honor Poultry Agreement</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7449</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7449</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[A bipartisan group of 30 senators wrote to the Russian government Monday expressing concern regarding Russia’s failure to fully honor its recent commitment to allow U.S. poultry products back into Russia.

The senators noted that President Barack Obama and President Medvedev reportedly came to an agreement on June 24 of this year to re-open the Russian [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[A bipartisan group of 30 senators wrote to the Russian government Monday expressing concern regarding Russia’s failure to fully honor its recent commitment to allow U.S. poultry products back into Russia. 

The senators noted that President Barack Obama and President Medvedev reportedly came to an agreement on June 24 of this year to re-open the Russian market to U.S. poultry.  However, since that agreement was reached, Russia has attempted to impose further restrictions on U.S. poultry products rather than move forward to implement the agreement the two presidents reached in June.  

Over the last three years, U.S. poultry exports to Russia averaged more than $800 million in value, making Russia the single largest U.S. export market.  The poultry industry represents over 500,000 jobs in the United States.
 
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>AgChat President Jeff Fowle: Social Media Growth ‘Amazing’</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7445</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AFBF Newsline</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[AFBF Newsline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7445</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Social media hasn’t just hit the mainstream. It’s also hit the back roads and the back forty. Farm Bureau member Jeff Fowle, a fourth-generation farmer and rancher from northern California, said social media has become an important part of his daily routine.

“On Twitter currently I am almost at 23,000 followers and on an average day [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Social media hasn’t just hit the mainstream. It’s also hit the back roads and the back forty. Farm Bureau member Jeff Fowle, a fourth-generation farmer and rancher from northern California, said social media has become an important part of his daily routine.

“On Twitter currently I am almost at 23,000 followers and on an average day I reach between 900,000 and 1.3 million individuals,” Fowle said. “Of those, I expect approximately 30 to 40 percent actually see at least one of my tweets per day. More people are getting involved creating a Facebook page, getting on Twitter, utilizing YouTube to explain why, what and how they put food on the plate. The growth has been amazing.”

Fowle is president of the AgChat Foundation, a group that focuses on helping farmers and ranchers use social media technology to share their stories and make connections with people not involved with agriculture.

“We have relied too long on having others share our story and the face of the American farmer has been forgotten,” he said. “And I think it’s time to put a face back on the plate, and I think social media is one opportunity for us to make tremendous progress in overcoming that adversity. More farmers and ranchers are getting their stories out to the public and there’s beginning to be more understanding. It’s no longer an ‘us vs. them,’ but it’s a building of a bridge in the community between the farmers and the public that is getting stronger and stronger every day.”]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Fewer livestock producers worries USDA&#8217;s Vilsack</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7437</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Reuters</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Reuters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7437</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Vilsack and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday jointly chaired a public hearing on such concentration, with the intent of slowing the decline in rural populations.

The session, which was the fourth of five to be held this year, was attended by more than 1,000 producers, many of whom favored increased government intervention to ensure [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Vilsack and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday jointly chaired a public hearing on such concentration, with the intent of slowing the decline in rural populations.

The session, which was the fourth of five to be held this year, was attended by more than 1,000 producers, many of whom favored increased government intervention to ensure them access to key markets, a move they say would help smaller producers stay in business.

"We have lost hundreds of thousands of (cattle) producers, We see the same thing in hogs, we see the same thing in dairy," Vilsack said during a Friday press conference.

The number of U.S. meat companies that buy U.S. cattle, hogs and chickens has decreased in the past 20 years to where a handful of large companies now control the majority of each market.

Larger producers, many of which sell thousands of hogs or cattle a year, in general argued for less government intervention and to let the markets dictate how cattle and hogs are priced and sold.

"There are opportunities in the market today where the smaller producer can participate," argued panelist Jerry Bohn, manager of a large Kansas feedyard.

As an example, he said, some of the top prices paid out in a popular beef marketing program went to producers who sold less than 250 cattle a year.

"If those opportunities were out there, I don't think this room would be full," countered panelist Armando Valdez, a Colorado rancher.

PRICE DISPARITY ALLEGED

Chris Peterson, a hog producer from Clear Lake, Iowa, wearing a "Family Farms First" sign on his shirt, testified of instances where pork plants paid rival producers 5 to 6 cents more per pound for hogs "simply because they (the producers) were large."

For a small to medium producer, he said that equals "$56,000 in income."

While Friday's hearing was designed to focus on concentration in the meat industry, many of the attendees used the forum to speak out for or against marketing rules proposed by USDA's Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).

Large producers in attendance opposed the rules, claiming they would dismantle marketing agreements that reward them for producing the size and quality of cattle and hogs that meat packers want.

"The GIPSA rule assumes all the cattle are the same." said James Herring, chief executive of Friona Industries in Amarillo, Texas.

Herring and others argued there can be differences of $100 to $400 per head in the same pens of cattle.

Smaller producers want the rules, claiming they would make marketing agreements public and would give leverage to GIPSA to prosecute violators.

The comment period on the GIPSA rules ends on November 22.

"I can't tell you today that I know what the solution is, but I know we can't continue this trend because if we do, we will end up with a handful of farmers, a handful of packers, a handful of processors, and a handful of grocery stores." Vilsack said of the decline in rural populations.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Egg recall heats up debate over caging chicken</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7435</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>San Francisco Chronicle</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco Chronicle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7435</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[A recall of a half-billion eggs from two mega-farms in Iowa is stoking a fierce controversy over whether factory farming is inherently unsafe - and a battle in California over a 2008 voter initiative banning the standard industry practice of packing hens so tightly in battery cages that they cannot spread their wings.

Voters passed Proposition [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[A recall of a half-billion eggs from two mega-farms in Iowa is stoking a fierce controversy over whether factory farming is inherently unsafe - and a battle in California over a 2008 voter initiative banning the standard industry practice of packing hens so tightly in battery cages that they cannot spread their wings.

Voters passed Proposition 2 overwhelmingly in 2008 after animal welfare activists released horrific undercover videos of strangled, deformed and mummified hens in battery cages.

It will take effect in 2015. Animal welfare activists are linking battery cages to the Iowa salmonella outbreak, saying they are not just cruel to animals but a threat to food safety.

"Proposition 2 requires cage-free treatment of laying hens, and the evidence is very clear that caging laying hens increases the risk of salmonella," said Paul Shapiro, head of the Humane Society of the United States' Factory Farming Campaign.

But Arnie Riebli, a Petaluma chicken farmer and president of the Association of California Egg Farmers whose family runs Sunrise Farms, a million-hen operation, insisted cages are safer.

"In a caged environment you are separating the birds from their feces," Riebli said. "In a cage-free environment you do not do that. You allow the birds to walk in it and you allow the birds to eat it. Believe me, all you're doing is feeding them bacteria. Would you allow a small child to play in his excrement or eat his excrement?"
Agreeing, disagreeing

The bird battle is raging on three fronts:

-- Animal rights activists and egg farmers, usually arch enemies, came together behind a law signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger last month that will ban all eggs coming from outside the state that fail to comply with the battery-cage ban. The new law could save the state's egg farmers and spread Prop. 2 nationally.

California egg farmers no longer face the threat that cheaper battery-cage eggs from the Midwest will put them out of business. Other states that want to sell in California could be forced to pass their own cage bans. Some states already have passed varying types of bans.

-- Farmers and animal activists are clashing over whether Prop. 2 permits any cage, specifically the larger "furnished" hen cages common in Europe that provide perches, nesting boxes and scratch posts that allow hens to express natural behaviors.

-- As the California ban promises to spread, it is escalating a national fight over whether factory farming itself is to blame for large outbreaks of food poisoning.

No California-grown eggs have been implicated in the salmonella enteritidis outbreak that has infected at least 1,470 people. Officials said Thursday they had traced the contamination to feed used by Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms in Iowa.

Wright County Egg is owned by the DeCoster family, which has a record of labor, environmental, animal cruelty and health violations and is becoming the symbol of factory farming. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, called a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee next month, asking owner Austin "Jack" DeCoster to testify.
Voluntary regime

California eggs have not seen a recall in over a decade. Farmers point to a voluntary regime - the California Egg Quality Assurance Program - put in place 15 years ago that is stronger than new Food and Drug Administration egg rules that took effect July 9. It requires testing and sanitation controls and covers 95 percent of the state's egg farms.

Ralph Ernst, extension poultry specialist emeritus at UC Davis who worked on the rules, said cages "are more sanitary than any other housing system, period."

But the science is mixed on whether "cage-free" eggs are safer.

"There's no particular reason to think that cages have any specific effect on the food safety aspect of the eggs," said Daniel Sumner, a UC Davis economist who surveyed scientific studies. "Cage-free is probably more dangerous when it comes to salmonella."

It is also unclear whether Prop. 2 in fact bans cages. One egg producer, J.S. West of Modesto, is investing millions of dollars in the larger furnished cages, promising a showdown with animal activists.

A spokesman for the California Department of Food and Agriculture offered only the Prop. 2 voter guide, which stated that farm animals have adequate room to "turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs." Petaluma's Riebli said he can't get an answer from the state about what will be allowed. "Nobody wants to talk about it," he said.
Big operations

Critics said that the safety issue goes beyond cages to the industrial farming model, where many animals are confined together and production is concentrated among a few companies, creating a breeding ground for contamination and a means to spread it widely.

"Having huge numbers of living beings being in one place is a petri dish for disease," said Andrew Gunther, program director of Animal Welfare Approved, a private certification program. He compared salmonella in hen houses to the spread of colds on cramped airplanes.

"What you have is a vertically integrated supply chain that becomes toxic and that's exactly what's just happened. It's an unsustainable system showing a complete breakdown."

Bob Martin, who directed the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, a project of the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts, said salmonella can occur anywhere.

"But as you pack the animals in the way they are in these industrial facilities ... when you centralize production, and you've got 10 brands getting all their eggs from two farms and those two are sharing birds back and forth and share the same feed supplier, you just dramatically increase the chances of a dynamic salmonella outbreak."
Classifying chickens

California's Proposition 2, which was passed by 63 percent of voters in 2008 and takes effect in 2015, bans tight confinement of farm animals. That won't change the maze of confusing labels consumers face.

Cage-free - Hens can still be kept in huge closed barns housing tens of thousands of chickens.

Organic - As certified by the USDA, this label requires some outdoor exposure.

Pasture-raised - This and other higher classifications indicate outside forage on vegetation and insects.

Certified humane - Endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, this does not require access to the outdoors but has standards for air quality and lighting.

Note: The science remains mixed on whether "cage-free" eggs are safer to eat than eggs from "battery cages."
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>For green movement, a change in climate</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7433</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7433</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Leading environmental groups are admitting defeat in the climate change battle now that it appears Congress will not pass a climate change bill this year.
The Washington Post reports that a year ago the groups were at the peak of influence with the House narrowly passing a mammoth cap-and-trade climate change bill. But the sluggish economy and opposition from Farm Bureau and other groups now means that they have apparently lost the fight.
Last week, the environmental groups held two events in Wisconsin to rally support, but neither event drew enough people to fill a high school gym.
]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[On Thursday, some of the country's most respected environmental groups - in the midst of their biggest political fight in two decades - sent a group of activists to Milwaukee with a message.

We're losing.

They put on what they called a "CarnivOil" - a fake carnival with a stilt-wearing barker, free "tar balls" (chocolate doughnuts), and a suit-wearing "oil executive" punching somebody dressed like a crab. It was supposed to be satire, but there was a bitter message underneath: When we fight the oil and gas industry, they win.

"We killed the clean-energy bill! There's still no cap on oil spills!" yelled Heather Brutz, the barker, who was pretending to speak for the industry. "And now, for our graaaaaaand finale, we're going to pass the diiiiiirty-air act!"

A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate's approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.

Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: exhibiting defiance and pleading for sympathy.

Neither one drew enough people to fill a high school gym.

"What was revealed by the last year or two was that the energy industry hasn't even had to break a sweat yet in beating this stuff off. Our side did absolutely everything you're supposed to do . . . but got nowhere," said author Bill McKibben, who co-founded the climate-focused group 350.org.

Washington's climate battle is still far from over. The Environmental Protection Agency is setting limits on some sources of greenhouse gases: first auto tailpipes, then power plants and factories next year. Now, industry groups and senators from coal-producing states are trying to prevent that.

The White House has said President Obama would veto such an effort, but that would be far easier if environmental groups could whip up public support for him.

There could also be fights over smaller pieces of environmentalists' agenda: efforts to require more renewable-energy generation nationally and to defend state-level climate plans such as the one in California.
Climate bill's outlook

Before, green groups had wanted so much more than this - they wanted a "cap and trade" bill that would set emissions limits nationwide. The House passed a bill like that, but - after industry groups said it would kill jobs and slow the economy - the Senate decided last month to not even take the issue up.

The bill's chances, already bad, will get worse if Republicans gain seats, as is widely predicted, in the midterm elections.

"If it's not addressed in a lame-duck session of Congress, it will have been punted to the next generation," said David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

Environmental groups have won some victories in recent years, opposing individual coal-fired power plants and pressuring banks to stop funding "mountaintop removal" coal mines.

But for the green movement, this year's defeat was more than a loss; it was a reckoning, a signal that it had overestimated its influence.

Even in the hottest year on record, even with a historic oil spill polluting the Gulf of Mexico, even with a Democratic Congress and a friendly White House, it couldn't win the fight it had picked. In fact, in the Senate it couldn't even start it.

"The oil industry has tremendous reach and control in the United States Senate," said David Di Martino, a spokesman for Clean Energy Works, a coalition of more than 60 groups that includes such big names as the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. "Our mistake was miscalculating . . . how far into the Senate it went."

Looking back, some environmentalists say their problem was timing; once the economy perks up, their logic goes, prospects will improve. Others blame implacable Republican opposition (though a number of conservative and coal-state Democrats also balked), or a president who they say didn't push hard enough and focused first on health care and financial regulation. The White House blames them back for not winning any Senate Republicans over to support the climate bill.

But some activists from smaller groups say the problem is within environmentalism itself. To them, the Senate defeat showed that green groups don't have enough of Washington's two currencies of power: money and angry voters. To them, it's significant that no senator seems in danger of being voted out of office this November for denying the environmentalists the climate bill they wanted.
Spreading the message

This week, oil and coal groups will start a series of pro-industry rallies around the country, repeating a strategy that worked well last summer. In Wisconsin last week, environmental groups were trying to get their message across first.

On Wednesday, a coalition of environmental and labor groups called the "Blue Green Alliance" came to Green Bay during a tour of 30-plus cities. They arrived in a blue bus painted with a windmill, smiling workers - and a painted message that was resilience bordering on denial.

"The Job's Not Done," the bus said, meaning the climate bill.

"A new green job can be waiting out there for you" if the bill is passed and stimulates the growth of renewable energy, said Mark Westphal, representing a United Steelworkers local. "I'm here today to tell the United States Senate to get on board."

But only about 30 people attended the midafternoon event. A half-hour after it began, the speakers were back on the bus and the parking lot was almost empty.

The next day, in Milwaukee, the CarnivOil - put on by Clean Energy Works - took a different tack.

Instead of holding out hope for a climate bill, they declared it dead and tried to blame the oil and gas industry for killing it.

"The message to folks outside of Washington is that, while they're not paying attention, big oil's having a carnival in Washington," Clean Energy Works' Di Martino said. "Anything and everything that threatens their business model, they're able to stop. And the message to people is to wake up."

Every few minutes, there would be a fight. The person in the crab costume - said to be boxing on behalf of the environment - would take on the fake oil executive. Each bout followed the same script: The oil executive would bribe the referee, who would make the crab take off his boxing gloves.

Soon after, the crab would be lying on the mat, KO'd.

"Oh! The Earth is down! It's taken too many hits!" yelled "ref" Scott Thompson. "Remember, folks, just like in the real world, big oil always gets the upper hand!"

The event drew in scattered pedestrians, and afterward organizers said dozens had signed their petitions calling for action against climate change.

But, even among those drawn in by the spectacle, it was hard to see the seeds of an environmental revolution.

"It catches attention," said Jenny Schrank, 19, of Milwaukee after playing a game in which she pitched fake fish into bowls of "tar," a reference to this summer's BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Normally, she said, the environment "is not something that I do anything about."

Would that change now?

"Um," Schrank said, "maybe."

"I don't know about that," said her friend Rachel Rutter-Smith, 20.

"We're all lazy," Schrank said. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Glenn Beck tells crowd to &#8216;restore America&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7422</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7422</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[But you can't blame Glenn Beck for his 'March on Washington' envy. We love Glenn!&#34;&#34;I watch Glenn Beck,&#34; said Kathy Thomas, 70, a dressmaker from Bridgewater, N.J. &#34;I love Glenn Beck. But Sanchez, a retired administrative assistant, watches Beck on television every day.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philip Rucker, Carol Morello and Amy GoldsteinA sea of people rallied at the hallowed site of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday as conservative commentator Glenn Beck and other heroes of the &#34;tea party&#34; movement honored Americans serving in the military and delivered impassioned calls to turn the nation back to God and to protect the traditional values that they said make the country exceptional.( Full coverage: Beck, Sharpton rallies )Claiming the legacy of the nation's Founding Fathers and repeatedly evoking civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., Beck, Sarah Palin and other speakers at the &#34;Restoring Honor&#34; rally exhorted a sprawling and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that has scarred the nation but instead on what makes it &#34;good.&#34;( Share: E-mail this story )&#34;For too long, this country has wandered in darkness, and we have wandered in darkness in periods from the beginning,&#34; Beck said, at times pacing at the memorial. &#34;We have had moments of brilliance and moments of darkness. But this country has spent far too long worried about scars and thinking about the scars and concentrating on the scars.&#34;Today,&#34; he continued, &#34;we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished - and the things that we can do tomorrow. The story of America is the story of humankind.&#34;Beck's attempt to appropriate the legacy of King, who delivered his famous &#34;I Have a Dream&#34; speech from the same marbled steps 47 years ago to the day, occurred as the Rev. Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders organized a simultaneous event. They rallied outside Dunbar High School in Northwest Washington and planned to march to the Mall, to the site where a memorial to King is being built.&#34;The 'March on Washington' changed America,&#34; Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said at the Sharpton rally, referencing King's 1963 speech. &#34;Our country reached to overcome the low points of our racial history. Glenn Beck's march will change nothing. But you can't blame Glenn Beck for his 'March on Washington' envy. Too bad he doesn't have a message worthy of the place.&#34;Avis Jones DeWeever, executive director of the National Council of Negro Women also spoke to the crowd at Dunbar High School: &#34;Don't let anyone tell you that they have the right to take their country back. It's our country, too. We will reclaim the dream. It was ours from the beginning.&#34;Beck's rally has been billed as a peaceful and non-political &#34;re-dedication&#34; of the traditional honor and values of the nation. Throngs of people crowded shoulder to shoulder for six city blocks, from the Lincoln Memorial past the reflecting pool to the World War II Memorial. From there, the ralliers spread out as they spilled onto the grounds of the Washington Monument.The size of the gathering promises to be a subject of contention. Demonstrations on the Mall are notoriously difficult to estimate, with no official source for such figures. At one point, Beck joked he had &#34;just gotten word from the media that there is over a thousand people here today.&#34; Later, he told he crowd he heard it was &#34;between 300,000 and 500,000.&#34;Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), speaking soon after the Beck rally at her own impromptu event nearby, said: &#34;We're not going to let anyone get away with saying there were less than a million here today - because we were witnesses.&#34;Beck, a Fox News host, has developed a national following by assailing President Obama and Democrats, and he warned Saturday that &#34;our children could be slaves to debt.&#34; But he insisted that the rally &#34;has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with God, turning our faith back to the values and principles that made us great.&#34;King's niece Alveda King, an anti-abortion activist, addressed Beck's rally with a plea for prayer &#34;in the public squares of America and in our schools.&#34; Referencing her &#34;Uncle Martin,&#34; King called for national unity by repeatedly declaring &#34;I have a dream.&#34;&#34;I have a dream that America will pray and God will forgive us our sins and revive us our land,&#34; King said. &#34;On that day, we will all be able to lift every voice and sing of the love and honor that God desires of all his children.&#34;The crowd was not visibly angry. Rather, people said they had come to express their fear that the country is at a perilous moment.But the much-discussed anger did sometimes appear. A counter-protester, Ben Thielen, 32, a District public-policy worker, caused a stir with a sign that said &#34;It's because of the 1st Amendment that Glenn Beck can spew his filth on the steps.&#34;Thielen said that a gray-haired woman accosted him and tried to rip the placard out of his hand, screaming, &#34;No signs! No signs!&#34; This was a reference to the event organizers' hope that political signs would not be displayed. (However, plenty of &#34;Don't Tread on Me&#34; flags were waved.)&#34;She just came up to me and said, 'No signs!' and clawed me like a wild animal,&#34; Thielen said, showing off red marks on his arms.The crowd erupted when Beck introduced Palin, a tea party heroine and a former Republican vice presidential candidate. Palin said she was speaking not as a politician, but as the mother of a combat veteran. Evoking the legacies of King, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Palin called on Americans to restore traditional values to the country.&#34;We must not fundamentally transform America, as some would want,&#34; Palin said. &#34;We must restore America and restore her honor.&#34;She said the military is &#34;a force for good in this country, and that is nothing to apologize for.&#34; Palin honored three military veterans, hugging them onstage, and told people to look to them as inspiration, even when the nation's challenges might sometimes seem &#34;insurmountable.&#34;&#34;But here today, at the crossroads of our history, may this day be the change point,&#34; Palin said. &#34;Look around you. You're not alone. You are Americans! You have the same steel spine and the moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King. It is in you. It will sustain you as it sustained them.&#34;The crowd responded with chants of &#34;USA! USA! USA!&#34;When Palin mentioned her former running mate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Steve Richardson, 72, of Denver shouted, &#34;John who?&#34; Richardson, who attended last year's Tea Party 9-12 rally, said, &#34;I just think McCain was a better airman than a politician&#34; because he supports energy trading and is too pro-immigration.At the counter-demonstration at Dunbar, Joyce White arrived early to show her opposition to Beck.&#34;If we hadn't elected a black president, do you think they would be doing this today?&#34; she asked.She recently retired and brought her grandson Troy to witness what she said would be a historic event.&#34;Reclaim the Dream&#34; T-shirts with black and white pictures of King were available for $10 near vendors selling wooden statues and Kinte cloth.Tehuti Imhotep came from Baltimore with posters depicting black history from the middle passage through King's 1968 march in support of trash haulers in Memphis.Imhotep shouted at passersby: &#34;This is our real history. [Beck's] trying to redefine the civil rights movement. How insensitive! King was about bringing people together. This man Beck is pulling people apart.&#34;The Sharpton rally was primarily African American.Barbara Williams-Skinner, president of the Skinner Leadership Institute, later addressed the crowd and drew strong ties between the 1963 rally where King spoke of his &#34;dream&#34; and the rally that drew hundreds of people to Dunbar High School.&#34;Like Dr. King, we believe that the bank of justice is not bankrupt,&#34; she said. &#34;We thank you God for raising up President Barack Obama as a small down payment on that dream.&#34;Bianca Farmer, a senior at Dunbar High School, got big applause when she asked the crowd not to stop at celebrating Obama. &#34;We must be fearful of stopping there,&#34; she said. &#34;The fight is not in the same arena as it was 47 years ago, but the fight lives on.&#34;People who came to the Beck rally carried lawn chairs and canes, backpacks and lunch sacks. One man planted an American flag on one side of his hat and a &#34;Don't Tread on Me&#34; flag on the other.Messages on the shirts of ralliers included: &#34;I can see November from my house,&#34; &#34;Restoring honor starts here&#34; and &#34;RECESSION: When your neighbor loses his job. DEPRESSION: When you lose your job. RECOVERY: When Obama loses his job.&#34;&#34;We just feel that government's getting too large,&#34; said Bill Bunting, 58, of Lancaster, Pa., who was laid off from his construction job this spring and now works as a real estate agent. &#34;It's mainly to send a message to politicians that we're tired of the corruption, both Democrats and Republicans. They should go back to following the Constitution.&#34;Others came just for Beck, a television personality who has become a hero of the emboldened tea party movement. At 8:50 a.m., as the crowd spotted him near the Lincoln Memorial, people chanted: &#34;We love Glenn! We love Glenn!&#34;&#34;I watch Glenn Beck,&#34; said Kathy Thomas, 70, a dressmaker from Bridgewater, N.J. &#34;I love Glenn Beck. I have a lot of admiration for the man. We feel that he's honest, sincere and really cares about the country and the people who are in it.&#34;Olga Sanchez, 79, of Tampa, had never been to a rally in Washington. But Sanchez, a retired administrative assistant, watches Beck on television every day. And when she heard him announce plans for the rally, Sanchez called her younger brother, a trumpet player in the National Symphony Orchestra, and said she wanted to come.&#34;I'm a big fan of Glenn Beck,&#34; said Sanchez, a registered Republican, sitting in her walker in front of the memorial's first step. &#34;He is opening our eyes, teaching us the history we didn't learn in school.&#34;The event had a strong military theme, with Beck giving a &#34;Badge of Merit&#34; to three soldiers. The rally was paid for through donations to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which funds scholarships for children of service members killed in action.Speakers at Sharpton's 11 a.m. rally at Dunbar High School were to include Education Secretary Arne Duncan, radio host Tom Joyner, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous and National Urban League President Marc Morial. &#34;African Americans are still not treated equally in terms of education, the criminal justice system,&#34; Sharpton said in an interview. &#34;We're coming to remind ourselves of the dream and with a challenge to claim it.&#34;Back on the Mall, Rosa Sadowski, 50, stood on one of the pediments at the base of the Lincoln Memorial steps singing &#34;America the Beautiful&#34; in a strong, clear soprano. She immigrated from Mexico to the United States 13 years ago as a missionary, and now lives in Indianapolis with her husband, Patrick.Patrick Sadowski, wearing a polo shirt with eagles and stars and stripes, said that he belongs to the Constitution Party, because &#34;I feel the Republicans and the Democrats are the same people who own all the horses in the race.&#34; He said that he favors candidates of any party as long as they are &#34;biblically based.&#34;John Sawyers and Linda Adams say they aren't angry but simply frustrated at what they call the &#34;ruling class.&#34;And at the health-care bill they say few supported. And at schools that no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance. And at elected officials who run on one platform and govern on another.So the couple from LaPorte, Colo., flew to Washington to attend the rally.&#34;We want our country to get back to its original roots,&#34; said Adams, 52, a university administrator whose ancestors were on the Mayflower and fought in the American Revolution.&#34;It's not anger,&#34; said Sawyers, 47, an engineer who grew up on a farm in Virginia. &#34;It's more, 'Guys, why are we going this way?' It's time for the silent majority to say its wrong.&#34;Sawyers, a registered Republican, and Adams, an independent, said they were moved to attend by Beck's theme of honor.&#34;Both of us are unhappy with the perception Obama is apologizing for everything we ever did,&#34; said Adams wearing a T-shirt with the slogan &#34;Does the Constitution say we the sheeple?&#34;&#34;We feel the United States is the greatest country,&#34; Adams added. &#34;And we felt we had to do something.&#34;At 8 a.m., thousands of people wearing &#34;Restoring Honor&#34; shirts were streaming down 22nd Street NW from the Foggy Bottom Metro stop, running smack into George Washington University's move-in day. At the GW Deli, a popular sandwich shop, an employee said that two rally participants threw sandwiches in his face and refused to pay because they didn't agree with a tax on the food.Beck repeatedly said the Saturday rally was intended to be &#34;entirely&#34; nonpolitical, but with the midterm elections nine weeks away, it is sure to be seen as a test of the strength and energy of the conservative movement. Beck is hugely popular among tea party activists, and the size, makeup and flavor of Saturday's crowd could offer clues about what has proved to be a powerful but unpredictable political movement.The event has invited comparisons to last September's &#34;9/12&#34; march along Pennsylvania Avenue, an anti-tax rally that was the first national gathering to demonstrate the size and influence of the burgeoning tea party movement.Saturday's event comes on the heels of a primary election season that has emboldened tea party activists. In Palin's home state of Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a member of the GOP leadership, is trailing in a primary behind a political neophyte whose underdog campaign was propelled by Palin and tea party groups. After Tuesday's primary, Gulf War veteran and lawyer Joe Miller leads, although no winner has been declared as vote-counting continues.Beck has urged his followers to keep Saturday's event peaceful. Organizing literature urges participants not to bring firearms, alcohol or political signs, and organizers were passing out cards with similar instructions on the Mall late Friday. The Republican Party has distanced itself from the event, and no elected officeholders are expected to speak from the stage.Still, Democrats preempted the rally by launching a Friday offensive designed to cast Republicans as extremists beholden to the tea party agenda. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, assailed Republicans for pursuing a &#34;destructive agenda&#34; and called out the tea party movement for pushing the GOP to the &#34;extreme right.&#34; And the Democratic National Committee released an online video featuring tea party favorites: Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul and other Republicans. The video was titled &#34;GOP Tea Party: These People Could Be in Charge.&#34;Some tea party demonstrators said they were mindful of the caricature of their movement that has taken hold among some Americans over the past year, and they see Saturday's rally as an opportunity to define themselves before a national audience.&#34;I'm not talking about some guy that doesn't have teeth and digs ditches for a living,&#34; Marcus Kindley, who owns a stock brokerage firm in Greensboro, N.C., said as he prepared to travel to Washington for the event. &#34;I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, professionals, small-business owners. They are fire-breathing angry at the government for not listening.&#34;D.C. Fire and EMS evaluated about 200 people and treated about 100 people from the Beck rally on the Mall, said Pete Piringer. About two dozen had to be taken to hospitals, some with cardiac issues.EMS personnel also transported about a dozen people from Dunbar and the march.ruckerp@washpost.com morelloc@washpost.com goldsteina@washpost.comStaff writers Amy Gardner, Hamil R. Harris, Krissah Thompson, Annie Gowen, Derek Kravitz and Lois Romano contributed to this report.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Mexico truck blowback burns U.S. Agriculture</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7413</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:07:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Natural Resource Report</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Natural Resource Report]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7413</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Mexico’s trade retaliation against the United States is expanding in size and scope due to the U.S. government not meeting obligations to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. Due to this inaction, America’s farmers and ranchers are paying a steep price and the American Farm Bureau Federation is calling for immediate action to correct the matter. The updated retaliation list published by Mexico includes tariffs that take effect today against U.S. pork, certain types of U.S. cheese, pistachios, a wide range of U.S. fruits and vegetables and other farm and non-farm goods.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Mexico’s trade retaliation against the United States is expanding in size and scope due to the U.S. government not meeting obligations to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. Due to this inaction, America’s farmers and ranchers are paying a steep price and the American Farm Bureau Federation is calling for immediate action to correct the matter. The updated retaliation list published by Mexico includes tariffs that take effect today against U.S. pork, certain types of U.S. cheese, pistachios, a wide range of U.S. fruits and vegetables and other farm and non-farm goods. “Mexico is one of our best trading partners and allowing this retaliation to continue for a provision we are obligated to meet is simply unacceptable,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “The economic impact from this growing list will be significant to many farmers and ranchers.”

Mexico has taken this action because under NAFTA, Mexican motor carriers are allowed to transport international cargo within the U.S. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a demonstration project to begin implementation of the negotiated cross-border trucking provisions. In March 2009, Congress failed to renew the program to allow a limited number of trucks from Mexico to haul loads into the United States beyond a 25-mile zone.

Mexico brought a NAFTA case against the United States on the issue. A ruling found that the United States was not in compliance with its obligations, and Mexico was granted the authority to retaliate if efforts are not taken by the U.S. to comply.

“As we can see from the growing list of agricultural and food items on Mexico’s retaliation list, America’s farmers and ranchers are particularly vulnerable,” Stallman said. “We sell a huge amount of food and farm goods to Mexico, so we have a lot to lose. As the retaliation list continues to grow, it comes at a steep cost to U.S. agriculture.”

Under NAFTA, U.S. food and agriculture exports have more than tripled, climbing from an average $3-4 billion per year prior to NAFTA to more than $12 billion in 2007, making Mexico the second largest export market for U.S. agriculture products.

“The U.S. has made significant strides under NAFTA, resulting in increased export opportunities and the creation of thousands of American jobs,” said Stallman. “But, continued inaction by the U.S. to address our Mexican truck obligations is likely to erode the gains we’ve made.”

NAFTA was fully implemented January 1, 2008. The agreement eliminates tariffs on U.S. agricultural products entering Mexico.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>In Alaska, Doubts About Climate Change Rise With a New Politician</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7409</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The New York Times</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7409</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Alaska&#8217;s cliffhanger primary is poised to propel a climate skeptic  toward the U.S. Senate, observers say, likely bolstering the number of  nominations achieved by conservative candidates who challenge manmade  global warming.

Republican Joe Miller, a former judge with a Yale law degree, showcased  Sen. Lisa Murkowski&#8217;s past support for climate legislation, among [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Alaska's cliffhanger primary is poised to propel a climate skeptic  toward the U.S. Senate, observers say, likely bolstering the number of  nominations achieved by conservative candidates who challenge manmade  global warming.

Republican Joe Miller, a former judge with a Yale law degree, showcased  Sen. Lisa Murkowski's past support for climate legislation, among other  things, before slipping by her at the voting stations Tuesday to capture  a 1,900 vote lead with several thousand absentee ballots still being  counted.

Miller believes the scientific findings behind climate change are in  "serious question." That position might have benefited him when he  dipped into Murkowski's past and tied her efforts to soften  cap-and-trade proposals in 2007 with aggressive Democratic climate  policies this year.

The attack amounted to "corroboration" for voters that Murkowski is too  willing to side with Democrats, says Dave Dittman, a Republican pollster  and consultant who worked in the past with Murkowski's father, Frank.

"Alaskans by a wide, wide margin do not believe in man-caused global  warming," he said, pointing to a recent poll by his firm finding that  just 33 percent of state residents believe humans are contributing to  climate change. Five percent said the planet is cooling.

Murkowski tried to temper her positions before the race. She edged away  from the manmade climate issue, saying this summer that she's unsure to  what extent humans are responsible for warming. Instead, she focused on  helping villagers and other Alaskans who are already feeling the effects  of climate change -- whether it's naturally occurring or not.

The positioning gave Miller another avenue of attack. He put the  spotlight on her political swinging. Meanwhile, he staked out the  conservative acreage around the climate issue for himself.

"It's not like this is a fringe perspective," Miller said of challenging  climate science in an interview this summer. "I don't think anybody's  going to argue that there's cyclical warming patterns. Are these  cyclical patterns that we've observed over time, and the pattern that  we're in right now, is it the consequence of manmade emissions?"

"And that's not been proven," he added." I think the jury's well out on that right now."

'Just give me the facts'

That position is finding a home in several races around the country, as  conservative candidates tap into voter uncertainty around climate change  while defining it as an ideological agenda item for Democrats and their  GOP allies.

Sharron Angle, the winner of Nevada's Republican Senate primary, doesn't  believe in manmade climate change. She faces Majority Leader Harry Reid  (D-Nev.) in November.

Ron Johnson, who's favored to win Wisconsin's GOP Senate primary next  month, says sunspots are more likely the cause of Earth's warming than  emissions. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is launching a quick  counterattack, accusing Johnson of making "pop science embarrassed,"  according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

In West Virginia, where Republicans hope to capture a long-held  Democratic House seat in the first congressional district, Republican  primary winner David McKinley says he's unsure if the region's coal  contributes to global warming.

"Is this just a natural cyclical occurrence? I don't know," McKinley  said of climatic trends in an interview this month. "On one day I'll  read this is the coolest winter we've experienced, or the coolest  summer. And then others will say, 'No this is the hottest.' Well which  is right? They can't both be right. Just give me the facts."

"Could there be ozone depleting emissions? Yes," he added. "What do we do about it? We don't shut off the coal."

Back in Alaska, the winner of the GOP primary for lieutenant governor,  Mead Treadwell, also questions whether human activities play a role in  climate change.

Murkowski, threatened, didn't fight back

Treadwell resigned as chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in  May. During his nine-year tenure, the Bush appointee helped set the  federal government's research agenda for the rapidly evolving region,  which is warming twice as fast as the global average.

"The Arctic is perhaps hurt worst by climate change sped up by emissions  from global fossil fuel use," Treadwell wrote in an April 3 op-ed  published in the Anchorage Daily News. "Responsible Arctic  regions will work hard to advance technologies to make oil use more  benign, including carbon capture and sequestration."

But his campaign website contains no mention of climate change. And in a  written statement submitted to the Wasilla-based Conservative Patriots  Group seeking its endorsement, Treadwell said he is not convinced that  carbon dioxide emissions produced by burning fossil fuels are driving  climate change.

"I challenge the argument that man made CO2 emissions are causing  significant global warming and I will oppose any costly new regulations  that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices and weaken the  nation's global competitiveness," he wrote.

Treadwell easily defeated challengers Jay Ramras, Eddie Burke and Bob  Lupo, winning 53 percent of the vote with 429 of 438 precincts reporting

The Senate outcome in Alaska might have repercussions for future climate debates.

Murkowski was considered a potential swing vote on cap and trade this  year, despite her hardened position. She's the top Republican on the  Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and co-sponsored a cap-and-trade  bill in 2007. Her Senate office says she sought to moderate its impact  on businesses and ratepayers by seeking to limit the price of carbon  allowances at $12.

But if Murkowski had a story to tell, her message fizzled, several  observers say. The senator underestimated Miller, a political no-name,  and failed to hit back on attacks launched on radio and television, they  said.

"She didn't take the threats seriously enough," said Jerry McBeath, a  political science professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.  "She had all the benefits of incumbency, and she did use them to her  advantage."

Alaska Dems hopeful; conservatives cautious

While Miller and the Tea Party were targeting her for failing to tackle  Democratic initiatives on healthcare and stimulus spending - both of  which she opposed - Murkowski focused on President Obama.

"She never went negative," said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the  Cook Political Report. "In an environment like this, you can take  nothing for granted."

The final vote count probably won't be done for several days, even a  week, as absentee ballots continue to come in. But Murkowski's  "overconfidence" almost certainly means the senator lost her seat, Duffy  added.

"My sense is that it will be something of a miracle to pull this out," she said.

Miller, meanwhile, accelerated into the race after being endorsed this  summer by former Gov. Sarah Palin. The Tea Party Express came to his aid  with about $500,000 in reported advertising funding.

After her endorsement, Palin largely remained in the background. Until  the final week, when she recorded a robocall attacking Murkowski, whose  father she unseated in a Republican primary for governor in 2006.

"She's waffled on the repeal of Obamacare, co-sponsored cap and trade  and voted for TARP," Palin said, referring to the Troubled Asset Relief  Program. "Joe Miller has the right ideas for Alaska."

Murkowski's likely defeat has excited Democrats, who believe Miller will  be an easier target in November than the senator most people call  "Lisa."

"I think we're gonna have our second Senate seat," said Patti Higgins, chairwoman of the Alaska Democratic Party.

But impartial observers believe it's unlikely that Sitka Mayor Scott  McAdams, the Democrat, has the name recognition or funding to beat  Miller.

And the count isn't over yet. Frank Bettine, an official with Wasilla's  Tea Party chapter, which supported Miller, never thought they would come  away with the nomination.

"I'll be quite honest, we expected the numbers to be reversed," Bettine  said after his morning moose hunt. "But we still got lots of absentee  ballots to count. We don't want to be too cocky yet."]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>House hearing set on egg recall</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7415</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7415</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Rose DeLauro (D-Conn), the head of the spending committee with jurisdiction over the FDA and USDA.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Meredith Shiner A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee is set to hold a hearing Sept. 14 to investigate the owners of two Iowa farms whose eggs have been linked to a massive salmonella outbreak affecting thousands of Americans.   Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced Thursday that the panel will convene upon Congress's return and that they have asked Austin &#34;Jack&#34; DeCoster, the owner of Wright County Egg, and Orland Bethel, the owner of Hillandale Farms, to testify. More than a half billion eggs have been recalled from the two Iowa farms since a link between their product and sick Americans was found.   In addition to writing the farms to request information on what the two independent companies knew and when, the panel also asked Wednesday for information from the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture. Both federal agencies oversee the quality and safety of eggs, from the safety of the shells to the health of the hens that produce them.   The action of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee follows up on requests filed by Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn), the head of the spending committee with jurisdiction over the FDA and USDA. DeLauro has also written letters to the two agencies as one of the most severe food outbreaks in recent years continues to strike Americans nationwide. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>McConnell: Cap-and-trade &#8216;dead&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7398</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hill</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Hill]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7398</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday that cap-and-trade energy legislation is &#8220;dead&#8221; in the upper chamber.

The Senate&#8217;s top Republican spoke before a local chamber of commerce in eastern Kentucky.

“I think cap-and-trade, which is also known as the national energy tax, is dead in the United States Senate,” McConnell said, according to WKYT.

The Senate [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday that cap-and-trade energy legislation is "dead" in the upper chamber. 

The Senate's top Republican spoke before a local chamber of commerce in eastern Kentucky.

“I think cap-and-trade, which is also known as the national energy tax, is dead in the United States Senate,” McConnell said, according to WKYT.

The Senate failed to reach an agreement on a comprehensive energy bill that included caps on greenhouse gases earlier this year after Democrats failed to garner enough support in the face of widespread Republican opposition.

Even though that led many to believe the plan had met its demise, McConnell's comments represent a bold pronouncement from a top lawmaker as members gear up for the midterm elections.

The cap-and-trade plan is one of several significant pieces of legislation passed by the House during this Congress on which the Senate failed to reach agreement.

Republicans have railed against a cap-and-trade plan, saying it would stymie the economy and job creation at a time when it has struggled to emerge from the recession. Democratic leaders have said it is a key measure to help reverse the effects of global warming.

McConnell warned the audience that the Obama administration could attempt to mandate some cap-and-trade policies through the executive branch, but said that was unlikely in an election year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sought to bring to the floor a smaller energy bill and legislation addressing the BP oil spill, which occurred in April. But the Senate has not yet been able to debate either on the floor.

But Democrats have disagreed about several key provisions in the legislation, and Republicans have refused to sign on to Democratic bills, putting forth their own proposals instead.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Lawmakers Investigate Egg Recall as Illnesses Rise</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7395</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bloomberg</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bloomberg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7395</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[A nationwide recall of more than a half billion eggs linked to a salmonella outbreak prompted investigations by U.S. lawmakers as health officials said at least 40 new illnesses have occurred in the past four days.

Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa were asked by lawmakers from the House Energy and Commerce Committee to [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[A nationwide recall of more than a half billion eggs linked to a salmonella outbreak prompted investigations by U.S. lawmakers as health officials said at least 40 new illnesses have occurred in the past four days.

Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa were asked by lawmakers from the House Energy and Commerce Committee to submit documents dating back more than five years about their safety practices, any alleged violations, and their discovery of the contaminated eggs. Wright County Egg, of Galt, Iowa, has announced recalls of 380 million eggs since Aug. 13. Hillandale, based in New Hampton, Iowa, announced a recall of 170 million eggs on Aug. 19, bringing the total to 550 million.

The incident may be the biggest withdrawal of salmonella- tainted eggs from the market in at least eight to 10 years, Jeffrey Farrar, the Food and Drug Administration’s associate commissioner for food protection, said today on a conference call. The FDA, which has more than 20 inspectors investigating the Iowa processing facilities, may report initial findings later this week, Farrar said. The agency also is inspecting facilities that supply hens to both companies, he said.

“We don’t anticipate any additional recalls of shell eggs from Wright County or Hillandale,” Farrar said.

Salmonella can cause fever, abdominal cramps and severe diarrhea and may require hospitalization, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Reports Mount

The CDC, which received 1,953 reports of salmonella-related illnesses from May 1 to July 31, learned of 40 additional cases in the past few days, said Christopher Braden, acting director of the CDC’s division of foodborne, waterborne and environmental diseases. Illnesses in at least 15 states are being investigated for potential links to the contaminated eggs, state and federal health officials have said.

While it’s unclear how many of those cases are linked to the recalled eggs, the agency would have expected just 700 cases to have occurred during that time period, based on data from the previous five years, Braden said on the conference call.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, also today asked the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the egg recall. DeLauro asked the agencies what they knew about reports of past violations by the egg producers before the recall occurred. DeLauro heads the House subcommittee in charge of the budget of the FDA and Agriculture Department.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Murkowski could leave power outage on energy</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7402</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7402</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Dan Berman Senate Republicans looking for committee assignments next year should check out the Energy and Natural Resources panel.   If Sen. Should the Republicans take the Senate and Burr assume the top spot, he would be the first Southerner to lead the panel since Sen.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Dan Berman Senate Republicans looking for committee assignments next year should check out the Energy and Natural Resources panel.   If Sen. Lisa Murkowski fails to make a Lazarus-like comeback against Joe Miller in her Alaska GOP primary, she&#x2019;ll join three other Republicans not coming back to the committee next year&#160;&#x2014; and leave the top spot vacant.   Murkowski&#x2019;s possible departure and a possible influx of new Western Republicans would complete the transition from the old guard of members &#x2014; former Chairman Pete Domenici (N.M.), the late Craig Thomas (Wyo.) and Larry Craig (Idaho)&#160;&#x2014; who dominated the right side of the panel over the past decade. In their place could come a new generation of Republicans who may favor a harder line against federal environmental protections and would be less inclined to work with Democrats.   Already leaving this fall is Sam Brownback, who is running for governor of Kansas. Kentucky&#x2019;s Jim Bunning is retiring, and Utah&#x2019;s Bob Bennett failed to secure his party&#x2019;s nomination.   The next Republican on the seniority list behind Murkowski is Richard Burr, who is in a tough general election fight in North Carolina. Should the Republicans take the Senate and Burr assume the top spot, he would be the first Southerner to lead the panel since Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) in the 1990s.   The remaining GOP members are John Barrasso (Wyo.), Jim Risch (Idaho), John McCain (Ariz.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.).   Whoever the top Republican is will very likely be in a much stronger position to affect legislation next year, either as ranking member on a committee with smaller margins (the current breakdown is 13 Democrats to 10 Republicans) or as chairman.   The energy committee has jurisdiction over domestic oil and gas development, nuclear power, renewables, the electric grid, national parks, forests and wilderness areas and the Energy and Interior departments. It annually takes up the most bills in the Senate&#160;&#x2014; those public lands and water measures add up.   Murkowski followed Domenici as the top Republican on the committee and continued the pattern of bipartisan cooperation with the top Democrat, Chairman Jeff Bingaman (N.M.). That didn&#x2019;t always go over well with staffers and some other senators.   One oil and gas industry source said Bingaman and Murkowski were good partners, and even if they didn&#x2019;t always agree, they realized that &#x201c;the appearance of cooperation was important.&#x201d;   For instance, Murkowski initially supported a Bingaman climate proposal, and the two worked together on a bipartisan energy bill that passed the committee in the summer of 2009.   &#x201c;Of all the committees in the Senate, the energy committee was a committee where at least the tone was civil,&#x201d; the industry source said.   Because it has jurisdiction over so much land in the West, the panel has long been a sought-after location for many Western Republicans, and the bipartisan tradition could disappear with an influx of potential new members such as Miller from Alaska, Sharron Angle from Nevada, Mike Lee from Utah and Carly Fiorina from California.   &#x201c;We&#x2019;re going to have a wholesale different committee,&#x201d; said Mike McKenna, president of industry consulting firm MWR Strategies.     McKenna predicts the panel would be less inclined to support a renewable electricity standard and would favor more oil and gas production, although Burr doesn&#x2019;t favor offshore drilling as much as the rest of the GOP caucus.   Some of those new members, along with returning senators like Barrasso, will also likely take a stronger line against federal environmental regulations of the oil, gas and mining industries and new federal land purchases.   Burr has been an active force pushing for increased funding for land and water conservation buys, said David Jenkins, government affairs director for Republicans for Environmental Protection.   Pinning down Murkowski on energy issues was always difficult, as she represents the state&#x2019;s oil and gas industry but lived on the more moderate wing of the Republican Party.   &#x201c;It&#x2019;s been really hard to get a good read on her,&#x201d; Jenkins said. &#x201c;A lot of time what she says sounds a lot more stewardship- and environmentally conscious than her actions seem to indicate.   &#x201c;She&#x2019;s said some really good things on climate and sounded like she really got that we need to do something,&#x201d; he added. But, &#x201c;every time there was an opportunity to step forward and work to a solution, she never rose to the occasion and set up roadblocks.&#x201d;   Early this year, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) approached Murkowski to discuss cap and trade, only to have her suggest oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a way to get her vote.   &#x201c;Anybody who knows the Senate right now knows that&#x2019;s a nonstarter, so why would she do that if she was serious at all at working together and finding solutions?&#x201d; Jenkins said.   Murkowski was unapologetic about pushing the resolution this summer to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions&#160;&#x2014; some speculated she had the primary challenge in mind at the time. More recently, she fought Democratic efforts to remove the liability cap for oil spills.   At the same time, she was one of the few Republicans even willing to engage on climate change and also pushed for global warming adaptation funding and Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty.   &#x201c;There&#x2019;s one less sympathetic ear floating around&#x201d; on climate, McKenna said.   Meanwhile, despite media speculation that Alaska voters wouldn&#x2019;t turn on Murkowski, who touted her seniority as an asset to bring federal money to the state, they appear to have done exactly that.   &#x201c;Alaska politics is totally unpredictable. No logic applies. It&#x2019;s a state full of very independent people&#160;&#x2014; real mavericks,&#x201d; said Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League.   &#x201c;They will always vote for someone they think will bring money to the state, that&#x2019;s why either Democrat or Republican, there&#x2019;s strong ties to the oil and gas industry,&#x201d; she added. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Global demand outpaces crops</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7387</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bloomberg News</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bloomberg News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7387</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The world’s appetite for meat, flour and ethanol is expanding faster than the supply of the crops needed to produce them, eroding inventories and increasing the chance of accelerating food prices.

But in central Ohio, big buyers of flour aren’t doing more than keeping an eye on the situation.

Wheat stockpiles are expected to slip to a [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The world’s appetite for meat, flour and ethanol is expanding faster than the supply of the crops needed to produce them, eroding inventories and increasing the chance of accelerating food prices.

But in central Ohio, big buyers of flour aren’t doing more than keeping an eye on the situation.

Wheat stockpiles are expected to slip to a two-year low as demand rises and a drought damages the crop in Russia, whose exports will plunge 84 percent, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said this month. Inventories of corn, used to feed livestock and make fuel, will be little changed from a year earlier, even as output rises to a record, the USDA said.

Russia’s worst dry spell in 50 years sent Chicago wheat futures to a 23-month high at one point this month. Corn prices are up 24 percent in the past year, as ethanol mills use 35 percent of the grain produced in the United States, the world’s largest exporter, and rising global incomes lead to more beef and pork consumption.

“The world doesn’t have enough exportable supplies to meet demand” for wheat and feed grains, said John Macintosh, 61, a vice president at Rand Financial Services Inc. in Chicago.

World food prices rose in July for the first time in three months on higher costs for cereals and sugar, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization said. The USDA said last month that meat prices will rise faster than expected this year at 2 to 3 percent.

Premier Foods, the St. Albans, England-based maker of the Hovis brand, said recently that higher wheat costs mean an “inevitable increase” in bread prices.

In central Ohio, food companies that rely on flour as a main ingredient say they’re not overly concerned about prices — yet.

“We buy all our commodities on a contract basis. We’ve bought all our flour and other goods through the end of the year,” said Tom Santor, spokesman for the Donatos pizza chain. “It’s something we always have to watch, but from what I’ve read in the trade press, people think at this point that any spike in prices will come down in the fall when the U.S. harvest comes in.”

Still, local businessmen remember other price spikes in the past few years that took a bite out of their bottom line, and they hope this year won’t see a repeat.

“I have heard rumblings that flour could shoot up again. I haven’t seen a whole lot of that yet, but I sure hope it doesn’t do what it did a couple of years ago, when prices more than doubled in a short period of time,” said Steve Block of the Block’s Bagels chain on the East Side.

Block said having to raise prices would be especially tough now, given the economy.

“We had to raise prices a little then (two years ago), though we tried to absorb as much as we could,” he said.

A global food crisis is possible if wheat drives the prices of other staples higher, said Franciscus Welirang, chairman of the Flour Mills Association in Indonesia, that country’s largest buyer of the grain.

“There will be a domino reaction, and we expect corn demand will rise, pushing prices higher, and feed industries will buy more corn and soybeans,” Welirang said. “It’s the end of cheap wheat.”

The wheat rally will need to last longer to boost costs for consumers, said Bill Lapp, the president of Advanced Economic Solutions in Omaha, Neb., and the former chief economist for ConAgra Foods.

“I don’t think it’s going to immediately pass through,” Lapp said. “It’s been a dramatic increase, but you have end users who have at least some inventory, and probably more coverage than they had two years ago.”

Rich Nelson, director of research at commodity broker Allendale Inc. in McHenry, Ill., said, “We’re going from an incredibly burdensome supply down to just above normal, so this is not a shortage.” ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Southern farmers say disaster aid plan failed them</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7385</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Associated Press</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Associated Press]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7385</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[MINNEAPOLIS — The permanent disaster aid program in the 2008 Farm Bill was intended to spare Congress from having to scrape up extra money every time a drought, flood or hurricane struck farm country, but growers in the South claim the plan has failed them.

They argue the program needs changes, and as proof they point [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[MINNEAPOLIS — The permanent disaster aid program in the 2008 Farm Bill was intended to spare Congress from having to scrape up extra money every time a drought, flood or hurricane struck farm country, but growers in the South claim the plan has failed them.

They argue the program needs changes, and as proof they point to the situation in Arkansas, where Sen. Blanche Lincoln has for months struggled to secure a special $1.5 billion package of disaster aid for Southern farmers hit by bad weather last year. After Lincoln failed to get the funding through Congress, the Obama administration agreed to provide the money administratively.

Southern farmers said they need the help because they didn't buy crop insurance, a requirement to qualify for the permanent disaster aid plan. Crop insurance sign-up is high among Midwest corn, soybean and wheat farmers, but in the South, many rice and cotton farmers complain premiums are too high for the benefits they receive.

"The parts of the country where we had the worst weather the last couple years are areas where they don't buy crop insurance," said Tara Smith, a director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said he and others who crafted the permanent disaster aid program didn't intend to skew it to the Midwest.

"We want a program that is equitable right across the country, because that's the kind of program that's going to stand the test of time," Pomeroy said.

Pomeroy said he wasn't sympathetic when Lincoln, a Democrat who chairs the Agriculture Committee, put her proposal forward because the permanent plan was supposed to end ad hoc, or one-time, aid. But he agreed Southern farmers are hurting.

"So maybe this last one is needed while we evaluate what is required to make sure these programs work on a level of regional fairness," Pomeroy said.

Joe Mencer, a rice, cotton, corn and soybean farmer from Lake Village, Ark., said many Southern farmers opt not to buy crop insurance because it's geared toward protecting yields, not profits. Yield is the amount harvested per acre.

"Our disaster comes with revenue loss, not yield loss," said Mencer, chairman of a crop insurance task force of the USA Rice Producers' Group.

For example, rice is an irrigated crop so a drought doesn't usually cut yields, but the cost of pumping the extra water the rice needs in a drought can turn what should have been a profit to a loss, he said.

Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, said making crop insurance attractive to Southern farmers would help fix the system. Johnson's group fought to establish the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program, the largest component of the permanent disaster aid plan.

"If we can get crop insurance to work for them, the SURE program will as well," Johnson said.

The Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program just started paying farmers who experienced crop losses from disasters in 2008.

The government had paid out more than $1.2 billion under the program, known as SURE, as of Aug. 17. Iowa farmers received the most money with nearly $211 million, followed by North Dakota at nearly $164 million, Texas with $133 million, Ohio at close to $85 million and Wisconsin with nearly $58 million. SURE will keep taking applications for 2008 losses through Sept. 30.

To qualify for SURE, a farm usually must be in or bordering on a county designated as an agricultural disaster area.

Most counties in the continental United States qualified in 2008 and 2009, as did most of Hawaii, as various areas were hit by drought, heavy rain or hurricanes. Yet 2008 was a banner year for farmers not affected by the weather, thanks to some of the highest crop prices in years.

"If you got affected by those floods or the hailstorms there was an impact, and it could have been sizable on your farm," said Chad Hart, an economist at Iowa State University. "But in the grand scheme of U.S. crop agriculture, it was a very good year for returns. And yet it was also a very good year for SURE disaster payments."

That could end, though. Under current law, SURE runs out four years into the five-year 2008 Farm Bill. There's no money in it for disaster losses in 2012, and it's too early to tell what will happen in the next farm bill.

"If we want to continue it we're going to have to come up with the money from somewhere else to do it," Smith said. "That's going to be very difficult to do."]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Before salmonella outbreak, egg firm had long record of violations</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7377</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7377</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Three years later, agents found 30 workers suspected of being illegal immigrants at a DeCoster farm in Iowa. By playing down DeCoster's role, the owners had avoided a background check into DeCoster's "habitual violator" status in Iowa. Most of the recalled eggs are presumed to have been eaten.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Alec MacGillisThe Iowa egg producer that federal officials say is at the center of a salmonella outbreak and recalls of more than a half-billion eggs has repeatedly paid fines and settled complaints over health and safety violations and allegations ranging from maintaining a &#34;sexually hostile work environment&#34; to abusing the hens that lay the eggs.In the past 20 years, according to the public record, the DeCoster family operation, one of the 10 largest egg producers in the country, has withstood a string of reprimands, penalties and complaints about its performance in several states.In June, for instance, the family agreed to pay a $34,675 fine stemming from allegations of animal cruelty against hens in its 5 million-bird Maine facility. An animal rights group used a hidden camera to document hens suffocating in garbage cans, twirled by their necks , kicked into manure pits to drown and hanging by their feet over conveyer belts.Hinda Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the company, declined to answer questions about its record. She said in an e-mail, &#34;We are focused on doing the right thing with the recall and on our continued cooperation with FDA.&#34;DeCoster owns Wright County Egg in Iowa, which last week recalled 380 million eggs distributed nationwide. A federal investigation into 26 outbreaks of salmonella enteritidis, the second-leading cause of food-borne illness, found that 15 of the outbreaks pointed to Wright County Egg.The DeCoster family also has close ties to Hillandale Farms of Iowa, which on Friday recalled 170 million eggs distributed to 14 states in the Midwest and West after scientists in Minnesota linked one salmonella outbreak to Hillandale. Wright County Egg and Hillandale share suppliers of young chickens and feed, and the DeCoster family put up the money for Hillandale's founder to purchase Ohio Fresh Eggs, the largest operation in that state.Federal and state officials are still trying to pinpoint the cause of the outbreaks, which started in May and so far have not involved any reported deaths. But the investigation and recalls already represent the biggest challenge yet to a family empire that has continued to thrive, often with the support of local residents and officials grateful for the jobs and tax dollars it provides.&#34;Wright County Egg recognizes the significant consumer concern about the potential incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis,&#34; Mitchell, the company spokeswoman, said in a statement. &#34;That is why we continue to work cooperatively with FDA after our voluntary recalls . . . of shell eggs. This measure is consistent with our commitment to egg safety, and it is our responsibility.&#34;As family legend has it, the company got its start in Turner, Maine, when Austin &#34;Jack&#34; DeCoster was 15: His father died, leaving him responsible for his siblings and the family's 125 chickens. DeCoster -- a born-again Christian who, according to Maine officials, once fired a manager because he was an atheist -- expanded the family's holdings to more than 15 million chickens. Now in his 70s, he runs the company with his sons Peter, in Iowa, and Jay, in Maine.Growing list of violationsAs the family's holdings have expanded, so has the list of allegations against it:-- In 1996, DeCoster was fined $3.6 million for health and safety violations at the family's Turner egg farm, which then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich termed &#34;as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop we have seen.&#34; Regulators found that workers had been forced to handle manure and dead chickens with their bare hands and to live in filthy trailers.-- In 1999, the company paid $5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit involving unpaid overtime for 3,000 workers.-- In 2001, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that DeCoster was a &#34;repeat violator&#34; of state environmental laws, citing violations involving the family's hog-farming operations. The family was forbidden to expand its hog-farming interests in the state.-- Also in 2001, DeCoster Farms of Iowa settled, for $1.5 million, a complaint brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the company had subjected 11 undocumented female workers from Mexico to a &#34;sexually hostile work environment,&#34; including sexual assault and rape by supervisors.-- In 2002, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the family's Maine Contract Farming branch $345,810 for an array of violations. The same year, DeCoster Egg Farms of Maine paid $3.2 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 1998 by Mexican workers alleging discrimination in housing and working conditions.-- In 2003, Jack DeCoster paid the federal government $2.1 million as part of a plea agreement after federal agents found more than 100 undocumented workers at his Iowa egg farms. It was the largest penalty ever against an Iowa employer. Three years later, agents found 30 workers suspected of being illegal immigrants at a DeCoster farm in Iowa. And in 2007, raids at other DeCoster Iowa farms uncovered 51 more suspected undocumented workers.-- In 2006, Ohio's Agriculture Department revoked the permits of Ohio Fresh Eggs because its new co-owners, including Hillandale founder Orland Bethel, had failed to disclose that DeCoster had put up $126 million for the purchase, far more than their $10,000, and was heavily involved in managing the company. By playing down DeCoster's role, the owners had avoided a background check into DeCoster's &#34;habitual violator&#34; status in Iowa. An appeals panel overturned the revocation, saying the disclosure was adequate.-- In 2008, OSHA cited DeCoster's Maine Contract Farming for violations that included forcing workers to retrieve eggs the previous winter from inside a building that had collapsed under ice and snow.Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer who specializes in food safety cases and has already filed one suit in the current outbreak and expects to file another Monday, said the recalls would deal a huge financial blow to the company. But he noted that several companies involved in other major recalls in recent years -- for peanuts, spinach and other products -- have seen their sales bounce back.&#34;This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but there are lots of companies with massive recalls . . . that go on their merry way,&#34; he said.Fewer U.S. outbreaksHoward Magwire of the United Egg Producers, a trade group, said the incidence of salmonella outbreaks in the country's egg industry, which produces 80 billion eggs a year, has dropped in the past decade, thanks to improved industry practices, better state oversight and consumer education. A new egg safety law that went into effect last month is geared toward preventing outbreaks like the ones that began in May by, among other things, requiring more testing for salmonella in chicken barns.Despite the DeCosters' record, some state regulators say the company has improved its approach in recent years. Kevin Baskins, a spokesman for Iowa's Department of Natural Resources, said the agency, which shares oversight of egg producers with the state's agriculture department, had brought no enforcement actions against the company's egg operations.&#34;One of the things I've always said about DeCoster is that when there's a problem at his facilities, he acts fast,&#34; he said. &#34;They're not going to sit around and question you, 'Do we really need to do that?' If we see a spill that needs to be stopped, they do it.&#34;The company also gets warm reviews from local officials in the towns where it operates. In Turner, where it provides $4.8 million in taxes per year -- 8.6 percent of the total -- Town Manager Eva Leavitt said the company is &#34;very easy to work with,&#34; despite the problems that arose there. &#34;The facility is neat and clean and has a pleasant view,&#34; she said.In Galt, Iowa, Wright County Supervisor Stan Watne said the DeCosters have &#34;done good things for the town,&#34; such as giving money to the library. He worries about what will happen if the company goes into a decline, given how much local corn growers depend on it as a buyer of chicken feed and a source of cheap fertilizer. But he is still hopeful that the DeCosters would survive intact given how many egg buyers depend on them.&#34;Who else are those people going to go to?&#34; Watne said. &#34;He's the big guy. He can fill an order no one else can.&#34;Rosella Bear, for one, has found another source for her eggs. A neighbor of a big Ohio Fresh Eggs operation in Marseilles, Ohio, she has long complained about problems there. While the smell and flies aren't as bad as they used to be, she recently reported to state officials another case of egg wash water flowing from the farm and filling roadside ditches with a reddish foam.She said she makes sure to buy her eggs from a local Mennonite family.&#34;I went just last night and got some nice big brown ones from them,&#34; she said. &#34;I don't think I'm going to get salmonella from their flock.&#34;The recalls involve more than a dozen brand names. Most of the recalled eggs are presumed to have been eaten. See http://www.eggsafety.org for help identifying recalled cartons.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t be afraid to use the S-word</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7371</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7371</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Temple Grandin, Ph.D., professor of animal science at Colorado State University, is known around the world for communicating with livestock producers about low-stress livestock handling techniques. Speaking at the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association's annual convention and trade show on July 30, Grandin talked about what she has learned about communicating with the general public about livestock production since the release of an HBO film about her life.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Temple Grandin, Ph.D., professor of animal science at Colorado State University, is known around the world for communicating with livestock producers about low-stress livestock handling techniques. Speaking at the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association's annual convention and trade show on July 30, Grandin talked about what she has learned about communicating with the general public about livestock production since the release of an HBO film about her life.

Prior to the release of the HBO film, which has been nominated for 15 Emmy awards, Grandin was busy attending press conferences in Hollywood to promote the film. She said reporters asked more questions about livestock production than they did about the movie.

"The public is hungry for this information," Grandin said.

Grandin said ranchers need to show all the stuff they do every day. Ranchers need to tell how they do their job plainly and clearly without emotion, because many people are totally separated from where they get their food.

"Get away from all the public relations fluff," Grandin said. "Put it in your own words, a ranch is a family farm."

Grandin works with packing plants, and she calls them just what they are--slaughter plants. She does not shy away from using the S-word and regrets that people have started referring to the process as harvest. Grandin said she used the S-word when doing interviews about the movie.

"Harvest is what we do with grain," Grandin said.

Grandin recalled that in the 1950s, school kids went on tours of slaughter plant facilities, but kids today are separated from reality. Farmers and ranchers need to show what they do in a matter-of-fact way.

"We need to clean up our house and show it," Grandin said.

To communicate what livestock producers do Grandin started putting some of her training videos on the Internet. One of these showed how to humanely stun a pig. The video got 400,000 views right away, but not all of the responses were positive. Grandin said she took off all the F-bombs, nasty posts, racist comments, and wacko comments.

"If they said something that made sense, I made a reasoned response," Grandin said. "Keep your own emotions out of it. Don't respond with anger. We need to take the mystery out of what we do. People are interested--just look at the popularity of shows like Dirty Jobs."

David Martosko, from the Center for Consumer Freedom, said agriculture needs to educate the public because groups like The Humane Society of the United States are winning the public propaganda war. Martosko spoke to Oklahoma cattlemen following the presentation by Grandin.

"Whether you want to be at war with them or not, they are at war with you," Martosko said.

Martosko said HSUS is playing a long game, looking 30 years down the road, and they are playing offense all of the time. Martosko said it takes about 30 years to move an idea from unthinkable to public policy. An idea moves from unthinkable, to radical, to acceptable, to sensible, to public policy. As an example, Martosko said to look at smoking bans in public places today. Thirty years ago that was unthinkable.

To move an idea from unthinkable to public policy requires two things: money and imagination. HSUS has $191 million in assets and spent $130 million just on its marketing budget last year. Plus HSUS has an imagination to match its budget; just look at the ads they ran for Proposition 2.

"The animal industry has a failure to imagine." Martosko said.

The goal of HSUS is to depress the sale of animal products and increase the cost of production until the animal industry is out of business. Martosko said to HSUS getting 10 people to go vegetarian half of the time is just as good as having five full-time vegetarians. HSUS wants to price your product out of the reach of more and more Americans.

"We need to create a new conventional wisdom about HSUS," Martosko said. "What it will lead to is more and more of the public understanding that HSUS is basically the same as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."

There is no such thing as firm conventional wisdom. The animal industry needs to lower the approval rating for HSUS.

"Be careful when you educate the public about agriculture," said Jayson Lusk, ag economist at Oklahoma State University. "People will become more concerned, not less, when they become informed."

Lusk said many people base their understanding of agriculture on an agrarian ideal from 50 to 100 years ago. The general public's understanding of the reality of modern agriculture is limited. In a recent survey consumers were asked what percentage of the eggs available in the grocery store came from cage-free layers. Consumers said 63 percent, when in reality only three percent of the eggs come from cage-free layers.

To better educate the public, Lusk said agriculture should avoid ineffective arguments. One ineffective, often-used argument is that sound science supports modern livestock production practices. Lusk said this point could be debated. You are forcing the public to choose between beliefs and science.

Instead, beef producers should emphasize costs, trade-offs, and unintentional consequences of some animal welfare initiatives. For example when Proposition 2 was passed in California, grocers decided to import cheaper eggs. The law did not change how eggs are raised--just where they are raised.

"People don't like to be forced to make difficult trade-offs," Lusk said.

There is some good news about animal welfare. Lush said consumers are concerned about animal welfare, but they are twice as concerned about the financial well-being of farmers.

"They want ag producers to do well," Lusk said.

All three speakers stressed that animal welfare is not a passing fad. It is here to stay. Learning to communicate with the public and with animal-rights activists about modern ranching practices is just another chore that needs to be done. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>U.S. Stands to Pick Up Wheat Exports Forfeited by Russia</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7368</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7368</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. stands to pick up export business because of expectations for a good crop and large wheat stocks, at just under 1 billion bushels.  USDA is also projecting the highest U.S. wheat yield ever at 46.9 bushels per acre, up 1 bushel per acre from July and up 2.5 bushels per acre from last year.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C., August 12, 2010 – The United States stands to gain a good share of the wheat export market that Russia is forfeiting due to the Russian government’s decision to halt grain exports until the end of the year, according to John Anderson, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The Agriculture Department today released its August World Agricultural Supply and Demand estimates or WASDE report. In the report, USDA projected a huge drop in Russian wheat exports for the 2010-2011 marketing year: 3 million metric tons, compared to 18.5 million metric tons, in the 2009-2010 marketing year. Russia decided to exit the grain export market this year because of a serious drought that is reducing crop prospects.

“This is a jaw dropping reduction in exports for Russia,” Anderson said. “And because the United States is expecting a good wheat crop with good stock levels, our farmers stand to take up a big share of wheat exports that would have gone to Russia.”

U.S. all wheat production is estimated at 2.26 billion bushels, up 2 percent from the July forecast and up 2 percent from 2009, according to the latest WASDE report. USDA is also projecting the highest U.S. wheat yield ever at 46.9 bushels per acre, up 1 bushel per acre from July and up 2.5 bushels per acre from last year.

The U.S. stands to pick up export business because of expectations for a good crop and large wheat stocks, at just under 1 billion bushels.

“The United States should pick up almost half of the wheat exports that would have gone to Russia,” Anderson said. “We have wheat when the other major exporters don’t have as much wheat.”

Anderson said it is important to note that global wheat stocks are still strong.

“We don’t have to worry about a global shortage of wheat right now, despite the difficulties in the Russian wheat market,” he said. “Overall, global wheat stocks aren’t all that tight, and the winter wheat crops in Argentina and Australia, who are big producers and exporters in the Southern Hemisphere, are looking pretty good so far. Futures have already retreated quite a bit from the highs set on the day of the Russian export ban announcement. Markets will begin to calm down over the next few days as everyone comes to terms with these adjustments.”

In addition to the import news impacting the wheat crop, Anderson said the August WASDE report is important for the corn crop, and it is being closely studied by the market.

“The big news is USDA is forecasting a record corn crop, a record yield and record use,” Anderson said.

In addition to more corn going in to ethanol production, USDA is forecasting more corn to go in the export market, to make up for the lost Russian grain exports.

“Wheat is used as a feedstock for livestock in many countries, and because not as much wheat will be available for export, many countries will turn to corn to meet the needs,” Anderson said.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>U.S. Agriculture Paying Price for Inaction on Mexican Trucks</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7366</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7366</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2010 – Mexico’s trade retaliation against the United States is expanding in size and scope due to the U.S. government not meeting obligations to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. Due to this inaction, America’s farmers and ranchers are paying a steep price and the American Farm Bureau [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2010 – Mexico’s trade retaliation against the United States is expanding in size and scope due to the U.S. government not meeting obligations to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. Due to this inaction, America’s farmers and ranchers are paying a steep price and the American Farm Bureau Federation is calling for immediate action to correct the matter.

The updated retaliation list published by Mexico includes tariffs that take effect today against U.S. pork, certain types of U.S. cheese, pistachios, a wide range of U.S. fruits and vegetables and other farm and non-farm goods.

“Mexico is one of our best trading partners and allowing this retaliation to continue for a provision we are obligated to meet is simply unacceptable,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “The economic impact from this growing list will be significant to many farmers and ranchers.”

Mexico has taken this action because under NAFTA, Mexican motor carriers are allowed to transport international cargo within the U.S. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a demonstration project to begin implementation of the negotiated cross-border trucking provisions. In March 2009, Congress failed to renew the program to allow a limited number of trucks from Mexico to haul loads into the United States beyond a 25-mile zone.

Mexico brought a NAFTA case against the United States on the issue. A ruling found that the United States was not in compliance with its obligations, and Mexico was granted the authority to retaliate if efforts are not taken by the U.S. to comply.

“As we can see from the growing list of agricultural and food items on Mexico’s retaliation list, America’s farmers and ranchers are particularly vulnerable,” Stallman said. “We sell a huge amount of food and farm goods to Mexico, so we have a lot to lose. As the retaliation list continues to grow, it comes at a steep cost to U.S. agriculture.”

Under NAFTA, U.S. food and agriculture exports have more than tripled, climbing from an average $3-4 billion per year prior to NAFTA to more than $12 billion in 2007, making Mexico the second largest export market for U.S. agriculture products.

“The U.S. has made significant strides under NAFTA, resulting in increased export opportunities and the creation of thousands of American jobs,” said Stallman. “But, continued inaction by the U.S. to address our Mexican truck obligations is likely to erode the gains we’ve made.”

NAFTA was fully implemented January 1, 2008. The agreement eliminates tariffs on U.S. agricultural products entering Mexico.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>FBACT Newswatch: Cotton Program, Prop 2, Rural Broadband and U.S. Beef Exports</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7361</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7361</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Lange: ‘Killer Bs’ Will Impact 2012 Cotton Program 
Speaking at the Southern Cotton Ginners Summer Meeting in Memphis, Mark Lange, CEO of the National Cotton Council, said the “Killer Bs:” budget, baseline and Brazil will play a major role in the cotton program in the 2012 farm bill. 
“There is a good chance that Republicans [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Lange: ‘Killer Bs’ Will Impact 2012 Cotton Program 
Speaking at the Southern Cotton Ginners Summer Meeting in Memphis, Mark Lange, CEO of the National Cotton Council, said the “Killer Bs:” budget, baseline and Brazil will play a major role in the cotton program in the 2012 farm bill. 
“There is a good chance that Republicans may take the House in fall elections, and if they do, there will be a number of ‘budget hawks’ coming to Congress. If that happens, we may be writing a 2012 farm bill with tremendous pressure on ag spending,” Lange said. 
The only price support money built into the Congressional Budget Office’s current baseline, beyond direct payments, is for cotton, according to Lange. “When (House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin) Peterson starts his discussion about a revenue package, where’s he going to find the money?  The only place to take money is from direct payments or cotton’s price support system.”  
Lange said Brazil could also challenge cotton’s marketing loan. “I think we’re going to be writing the farm bill with the Brazil case hanging over our shoulder,” Lange said.
 
Complying With Proposition 2 Proving Difficult
California egg producers are finding it difficult to comply with Proposition 2 that was passed by state voters two years ago to bring new animal care standards to egg-laying hens. 
While Proposition 2 doesn’t go into effect until 2015, it is already generating confusion among egg producers who aren’t sure if they need to get bigger cages for their hens. Interpreting the law has proven difficult. And finding out who will enforce it has been a challenge. It has yet to be determined if California’s Department of Food and Agriculture or Department of Public Health will enforce the law.
“Who knows what the law states,” said Debbie Murdock, executive director of the Association of California Egg Farmers, which is calling for clearer guidelines.
 
 
Biden Announces $1.8 Billion in Broadband Funding
Vice President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday 94 Recovery Act investments in broadband infrastructure for 37 states. Funds for the projects totaling $1.8 billion come from the nearly $7 billion Recovery Act initiative. 
  
“Today’s investment in broadband technology will create jobs across the country and expand opportunities for millions of Americans and American companies. In addition to bringing 21st century infrastructure to underserved communities and rural areas, these investments will begin to harness the power of broadband to improve education, health care and public safety,” Biden said Wednesday.
  
Projects receiving funds are part of a program—administered by the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Agriculture Department’s Rural Utilities Service—to expand broadband access and adoption across the country. 
  
 
ERS Forecasts 2.19 Billion Pounds of U.S. Beef Exports
  
USDA’s Economic Research Service Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook report released Wednesday forecasts that 2.19 billion pounds of U.S. beef will be exported in 2010, with exports to Japan and South Korea bringing most of the momentum to the market.
  
The report notes that June broiler shipments rose from a year ago, but fell short of last year’s second-quarter total broiler volume. Broiler shipment totaled 609.4 million lbs., a 14.6 percent increase from a year ago.
 
The report forecasts that feed prices will likely be higher next year. The corn price forecast is $3.50 to $4.10 per bushel for the 2010/11 crop year, a rise from current year projected prices. However, soybean meal prices are forecast slightly lower, at $250 to $290 per ton, for the 2010/11 crop year.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Illinois Research Shows Reduced Trust in Modern Farming</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7356</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Illinois Farm Bureau</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Illinois Farm Bureau]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7356</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[New consumer research by a coalition of farm organizations confirms that Illinois consumers care about who produces their food, but are misinformed about the family farmers who really grow and raise the majority of food produced in Illinois.

Extensive research from April to July showed the Illinois farmer is still held in substantial esteem by the [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[New consumer research by a coalition of farm organizations confirms that Illinois consumers care about who produces their food, but are misinformed about the family farmers who really grow and raise the majority of food produced in Illinois.

Extensive research from April to July showed the Illinois farmer is still held in substantial esteem by the public. But research also showed consumers have reduced trust in modern farming techniques and profound doubts about how their food is produced.

Farm organizations in the coalition, calling themselves "Illinois Farmers," include the Illinois Beef Association (IBA), Illinois CornMarketing Board (ICMB) , Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB), Illinois Pork Producers Association (IPPA) and Illinois Soybean Association (ISA). Their cooperative efforts were announced on Ag Day (August 17) at the Illinois State Fair.

Research projects conducted in behalf of the group, supervised by Milwaukee-based agency Morgan & Myers, show a pervasive mistrust of farming practices that stems from consumer concerns about food safety and animal welfare on so-called "factory farms."

While having trouble clearly defining "factory farms," consumers uniformly feel that such farms dominate Illinois agriculture. In a statewide poll of more than 1,100 non-farm adults commissioned by the groups and conducted by GfK Roper, Illinois residents believe, on average, that 54 percent of Illinois farm products come from "corporate farms," versus 46 percent from family farming.

In reality, the most recent USDA statistics show that individual family farms and partnerships dominate farming in the state, representing 94 percent of all farms.

"The American family farm should be the most trusted food-producing enterprise in the world," said Ron Moore, ISA chairman and soybean farmer from Roseville, IL. "But our customers think the family farm is passing from the scene. Nothing could be further from the truth. We may have larger farms with less diversity, but we are still farming together as a family, and often on the same land as previous generations."

"We know that the best people to tell the story of today's agriculture are the people that raise the livestock and farm the ground day in and day out," said Jeff Beasley, Illinois Beef Association vice president.

"We know of no better place than the Illinois State Fair to announce our intentions to update and reclaim the positive image of our ways of life," said Beasley. "We look forward to sharing the true story of farming and helping consumers get to know us in a way that they can connect with farmers and those who raise livestock."

Seventy-one percent of consumers in the poll said they felt more positive about farming when told the facts about the percentage of family-operated farms in the state.

"Farmers care deeply about our responsibility of raising safe and healthy food," said Brent Scholl a farmer from Polo and current IPPA president. "We must look for every opportunity to engage in a meaningful dialogue with consumers and be a trusted source of information on questions about how our food is grown and raised."

"But the current misunderstanding of consumers towards farming is really quite widespread - and creates substantial damage to their trust in farms and farming," said Scholl.

For example, two-thirds of non-farmers say they are not knowledgeable about farming practices used on Illinois farms. But two-thirds also say they are personally concerned about "lax regulations of corporate farms." And an equal number are concerned about "the role of big business in farming."

"We are in an era when "Food, Inc." and The Omnivore's Dilemma are required viewing and reading in our nation's high schools and universities," said Donna Jeschke, a corn farmer from Mazon, Illinois and immediate past-chair of the ICMB. "Myths about food production are today's urban legends, invading our classrooms and churches. It's high-time we in agriculture step back and consider the non-farmer and why they've come to the conclusions they have."

The research of Illinois Farmers has been used by the group to define a new "farmer's look" at the Commodity Pavilion on the Illinois State Fair grounds. Large-scale banners show photo portraits of farm men, women and children. More consumer communication using actual farmers and their families - through social media, conventional advertising, and special events - will be designed and conducted by the group in the future.

"We who farm need to change the way we relate to consumers," said Philip Nelson, a Seneca farmer and IFB president. "We must listen to their concerns even more than in the past, and open the gates and doors of our farms to rebuild trust in the way we really farm today." ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Vilsack says EPA has sent signal on E15</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7354</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Radio Iowa</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Radio Iowa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7354</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack says the Environmental Protection Agency has sent an important signal when it comes to corn-based ethanol fuel.

The E.P.A. is considering raising the maximum blend of ethanol in unleaded gasoline from 10 percent to 15%.

“I think that the E.P.A. administrator has indicated that we’re going to have E15.  I think [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack says the Environmental Protection Agency has sent an important signal when it comes to corn-based ethanol fuel.

The E.P.A. is considering raising the maximum blend of ethanol in unleaded gasoline from 10 percent to 15%.

“I think that the E.P.A. administrator has indicated that we’re going to have E15.  I think when she talked about labeling and starting to work on that, that’s an indication we’re going to have it,” Vilsack says. “The question is what vehicles will it apply to and, then, how do we build the industry from there.” 

Vilsack is visiting the Iowa State Fair today. He held an hour-long forum about the rural economy with a group of Iowans, including Bill Couser, a Nevada farmer who is a past president of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. According to Couser, federal officials should have announced an expanded commitment to home-grown fuels like ethanol and biodiesel when the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened in early May.  

“As we look at what happened…down in the Gulf, I was very disappointed when our government had the chance step up to the plate — and that was a horrible catastrophe — but when we have an industry here that’s built and it’s ready to go and it could double within a years if you just turn the key on,” Couser said. 

If the U.S. reaches the goal of producing 36-billion gallons of biofuels annually within the U.S. by 2022, the U.S.D.A. estimates $95 billion worth of new processing plants would be built in rural America over the next 12 years.

“It would also generate somewhere between 800,000 and 900,000 of those ‘blue collar jobs with a white collar wage’…which would be located in rural communities throughout the country,” Vilsack said, “and would provide an alternative and additional income source for America’s farmers and ranchers.”]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Inside Washington: Treasury talks housing; lending loosens; death and joblessness</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7348</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7348</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Fannie and Freddie may be a bad foundation for our housing market, but they're still the foundation for our housing market. Along with Ginnie Mae, they backed 98 percent of mortgages this year. For better or worse, Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae were behind 98 percent of all mortgages in this country so far this year, according to the Mortgage Service News.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ezra KleinFeel that electricity in the air? Find your heart beating a little faster, your senses seeming a bit sharper? You're not alone. That's how everyone is feeling in the run-up to today's Treasury conference on 'The Future of Housing Finance.' The millions and millions of you following along at home can pore over the participants list here (yes, that's the Mark Zandi who is expected to attend), or stream it live at www.Treasury.gov.But even as the Fed cracks down on bad lending behavior in the private market, Washington just can't figure out how to quit the mistakes its made in structuring the public scaffolding. Fannie and Freddie may be a bad foundation for our housing market, but they're still the foundation for our housing market. Along with Ginnie Mae, they backed 98 percent of mortgages this year. And this is a recession. That makes it a rough time to destabilize housing. &#34;Nobody in the private market thinks we&#8217;re ready,&#34; Barney Frank said.Elsewhere, some good news and some very bad news: Banks are loosening their lending, at least to larger corporations. But the economic pain continues, and there's extremely disturbing evidence of a sharp rise in suicides among the unemployed, and particularly the long-term unemployed.It's Tuesday, and Denny's has developed the most disgusting sandwich I've ever seen. Welcome to Wonkbook.Top StoriesThe Fed has issued regulations meant to prevent mortgage-lending abuses, reports Meena Thiruvengadam: &#34;The rules include a ban on yield-spread premiums--controversial payments that mortgage brokers have historically received in exchange for guiding consumers toward higher-interest rate mortgages. 'This will prevent loan originators from increasing their own compensation by raising the consumers' loan costs, such as by increasing the interest rate or points,' the Fed said. The ban, set to take effect April 1, will apply to both mortgage brokers and the companies employing them.&#34;Andrew Ross Sorkin argues we must tolerate Fannie and Freddie: &#34;Shutting down Fannie and Freddie and having the private market step in, as politically popular a sound-bite as that may be, is economically unfeasible. For better or worse, Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae were behind 98 percent of all mortgages in this country so far this year, according to the Mortgage Service News. Pulling the rug out from under them would be pulling the rug from under the entire housing market as it continues to struggle. 'Nobody in the private market thinks we&#8217;re ready,' [Barney Frank] said, adding that whatever legislation is developed, it will be 'for a postrecession world.'&#34;Daniel Gross sees export-oriented growth as the future of the US economy: http://bit.ly/dcWsrDLarge banks are starting to loosen their lending standards, report Sudeep Reddy and Robin Sidel: &#34;Large corporations have found looser terms throughout the year as banks compete for their business. But smaller companies, firms with annual sales of less than $50 million, continue to cite the difficulty in obtaining loans as an obstacle to expanding activity and creating jobs. And despite the most recent easing of terms, lending conditions remain far tighter than they were before the downturn, blocking out many small-business owners.&#34;There are worrying signs that the depth and length of the economic crisis is increasing suicide rates among the unemployed, reports Annie Lowrey: &#34;In rural Elkhart County, Ind., where the unemployment rate is 13.7 percent, there were nearly 40 percent more suicides in 2009 than in a normal year. In Macomb County, Mich., where the unemployment rate is also 13.7 percent, an average of 81 people per year committed suicide between 1979 and 2006. That climbed to 104 in 2008 and to more than 180 in 2009. The suicide prevention hotlines also show signs of stress. In Jan. 2007, as the recession started, there were 13,423 calls to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a nationwide toll-free hotline. A year later, there were 39,467. In Aug. 2009, the call volume peaked at 57,625. Last year, the government granted the group an extra $1 million to increase programs in places with high unemployment rates.&#34;Instrumental hip hop interlude: DJ Shadow plays &#34;Organ Donor&#34; live.Still to come: Big business is pushing for the Bush tax cuts; the Obama administration is tightening the environmental standards for offshore drilling; low loan-repayment rates are putting for-profit colleges (not to mention their students) in jeopardy; and some serious jamming on the iPhonw (well, on three iPhones).Economy/FinRegA federal judge has rejected a settlement between Citigroup and the SEC: http://bit.ly/9vEZYKBig business lobbies are joining forces to push to extend the Bush tax cuts, reports James Politi: &#34;The US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute - which represents the oil and gas industry - and the American Farm Bureau Federation - which lobbies for agricultural producers, held a joint press conference yesterday to argue that at least a temporary extension of tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush would help demand and spur investment...Mr Regalia of the Chamber said this would be a 'fool&#8217;s error' and accused the Obama administration of acting 'as if the upper class aren&#8217;t part of the economy'. He said the most profitable small businesses would be adversely affected by the change.&#34;The administration and Senate Democrats are in a standoff on Chinese trade policy: http://bit.ly/ds9wLdBanking regulators want to tighten overdraft rules, report Ylan Mui and Sonja Ryst: &#34;Federal regulators are considering making the rules even tougher. Last week they proposed new restrictions on smaller banks that have been pushing into the overdraft business as big banks have scaled back. As of Sunday, banks could no longer authorize debit card purchases and ATM withdrawals if there was not enough money in the account to pay for the transaction unless customers opt in to the service. The new rules effectively put an end to the infamous $40 cup of coffee, in which a customer overdraws an account with a $3 latte and gets hit with a $37 overdraft fee.&#34;Denmark is being forced to cut its model social welfare system: http://nyti.ms/b1SQawMegan McArdle explains why the market's rate of return may never recover from the economic downturn: &#34;Financial markets have an interesting feature that has undone many a trading strategy: once everyone starts believing something, it often stops being true. If you discover an arbitrage opportunity--otherwise known as a 'price anomaly' or 'free money'--it will be profitable only as long as few people know about it. Once it is widely known, bidders will rush into the market until the discrepancy is traded away. After that happens, future returns will be lower. In other words, once everyone believes that the stock market offers high returns for relatively little risk, that notion stops being true.&#34;Susan Urahn argues states have to reconsider worker compensation: http://bit.ly/csXXoWMobile cover interlude: &#34;Irreplaceable&#34; played on three iPhones.EnergyThe Obama administration is making environmental standards for offshore drilling stricter, reports John Broder: &#34;The new policy will require much more extensive environmental scrutiny once the moratorium is lifted and will lengthen the process of granting new drilling permits. Under current policy, the agency has only 30 days to decide whether to approve a drilling application, and few are denied. The new policy will also suspend the issuing of automatic exemptions from environmental review for virtually all new wells in the gulf. Such waivers have become common in recent years.&#34;The Gulf shrimp harvest is open again: http://bit.ly/cSt2xqCO2 emissions fell last year due to the economic downturn, reports Vera Eckert: &#34;IWR director Norbert Allnoch said given the force of the crisis, the reductions in CO2 output could have been greater, had stronger output in Asian and Middle Eastern countries not overcompensated the savings obtained from declines in Europe, Russia, Japan and the U.S. 'The energy-induced CO2 output in China in 2009 due to its economic growth has grown to a level now that is as high as that of the U.S. and Russia combined,' he said.&#34;A new invention promises to make home solar power more practical: http://bit.ly/aM6WP8Michael Dittmar questions the existence of a &#34;nuclear energy renaissance&#34;: &#34;According to the agency&#8217;s forecast, uranium demand in Europe will fall from 21,747 tons in 2010 to 17,378 tons by 2018 and roughly 16,000 tons by 2024. These numbers indicate that the EU, currently producing about 1/3 of the world&#8217;s nuclear electric energy, is heading for a reduction in nuclear-energy production of up to 20% over the coming 10 years. One can also expect that the current worldwide economic crisis will not help to accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants and new uranium mines.&#34;Stefan Rahmstorf notes that global warming makes events like the Russian heat wave and the Pakistani flood more likely: http://bit.ly/aEoenNRobert Bryce critiques wind power: &#34;Imagine a company proposed to construct a bridge in Minneapolis, or some other major city, that would cost, say, $250 million. The road would be designed to carry thousands of cars per day. But there's a catch: During rush hour, the thoroughfare would effectively be closed, with only 5 percent, or maybe 10 percent, of its capacity available to motorists. Were this scenario to actually occur, the public outrage would be quick and ferocious. That's exactly the issue we are facing with wind energy.&#34;Great moments in human agility interlude: Indian rope gymnastics championships.Domestic PolicyLow loan repayment rates at for-profit colleges are putting their access to federal student aid funds in jeopardy, reports Melissa Korn: &#34;According to the Institute for College Access &#38; Success, an advocacy group promoting affordable higher education, 98% of for-profit school associate's degree recipients in 2007-2008 had loans in 2008, with average debt of $19,700. At public and nonprofit colleges, 40% of associate's degree recipients had loans, with average debt of $10,900...Based on the proposed rules, schools could be stripped of access to federal funds if their students are found to have heavy debt burdens and if they don't land jobs that pay enough to handle the debt.&#34;States are beginning to receive funds to implement premium increase regulations under health care reform, reports N.C. Aizenman: &#34;The grants announced Monday are the first round of a $250 million, five-year program included in the new health care overhaul law intended to build states' capacity to rein in premium increases that have reached as high as 30 percent per year in some cases, and doubled on average over the past 10 years... it is up to states whether to exercise that option, just as the degree to which they review rate increases is left to their discretion. Indeed, five states -- Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota and Wyoming -- chose not to for the first round of rate review grants.&#34;A new bill would require technology to be blind and deaf-accessible: http://bit.ly/c05kUEThe recession led to cutbacks in health care consumption in the US, reports Robert Pear: &#34;Among Americans responding to the survey, they said, 26.5 percent reported reducing their use of routine medical care since the start of the global economic crisis in 2007. This proportion dwarfs the comparable numbers for other countries: 5.3 percent in Canada, 7.6 percent in Britain, 10.3 percent in Germany and 12 percent in France. 'Even in countries with universal coverage, individuals pay some medical care costs out of pocket,' the researchers noted.&#34;Jacob Hacker outlines next steps for health care reform: http://bit.ly/bbxp59Graeme Wood investigates ankle bracelets' potential to dramatically reduce the role of prisons: &#34;There is no reason, as the technology gets cheaper and the monitoring ever more fine-grained, why electronic monitoring could not be used to impose an ever wider range of requirements on an ever wider range of 'criminals.' A serious felon might have every second of his day tracked, whereas a lighter offender like myself--recently caught lead-footed by a traffic camera--might be required to carry a tracker that issues an alert any time I move faster than 65 miles per hour.&#34;Todd Purdum tracks a typical day for Obama and the White House staff: http://bit.ly/dj4IDKAaron Carroll previews how health care companies will game the Affordable Care act: &#34;People who wound up joining the (private) HMOs used 66% less care before joining than those who stayed in the (public) Medicare group. Somehow the private insurance HMOs figured out a way to get the healthy people to jump ship out of the another plan into theirs!...So we had a system where plans were in an exchange like environment. Regulations prevented cherry-picking. And yet, the insurance companies figured out a way to preferentially cover healthy people. And this was competing with a giant government program.&#34;Closing credits: Wonkbook compiled with the help of Dylan Matthews, Mike Shepard, and Sakina Rangwala. Photo credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News Photo.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Sen. Bingaman: No bills before November</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7337</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7337</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Sen. Jeff Bingaman said Thursday that he doubts Congress will pass any major legislation before Election Day, including a paired-back energy bill focused on responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Darren Samuelsohn CARLSBAD, N.M. &#x2013; Sen. Jeff Bingaman said Thursday that he doubts Congress will pass any major legislation before Election Day, including a paired-back energy bill focused on responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.   &#x201c;I think the Republicans are reluctant to support anything that might result in another signing ceremony between now and the election,&#x201d; the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee told POLITICO after a Mexican lunch here with Rep. Harry Teague and other local Democrats.   Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) punted last week on energy legislation that would eliminate the $75 million liability cap on damages oil companies must pay in the case of spills and other disasters and beef up the federal government&#x2019;s role in managing offshore drilling operations.   But Reid said he&#x2019;d try again when lawmakers return next month, perhaps even expanding the scope of the proposal to include other energy provisions like a renewable electricity standard that were dropped from when the energy and climate bill died in July.   Bingaman said he was in the dark about Reid&#x2019;s plans for the floor debate. Even so, he said he didn&#x2019;t think Democrats can muster 60 votes on the oil spill proposal given expected GOP opposition.   &#x201c;It may well be that we have to wait until a lame duck session to pass whatever we&#x2019;re able to pass,&#x201d; he said.   Democratic leaders on both sides of Capitol Hill tried to move legislation in response to the oil spill, with the House passing its measure last month. In the Senate, Reid ran into unanimous GOP opposition and a handful of Democrats who insisted on more negotiations over the liability issue.&#160;   In the Gulf, BP is moving closer this week to permanently sealing the well that&#x2019;s spewed an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude since late April. The Obama administration also reported last week that nearly three quarters of the oil has dissipated.     Even with those advances, Bingaman said Congress hasn&#x2019;t missed its chance to act.   &#x201c;I don&#x2019;t think it&#x2019;s passed us by,&#x201d; he said. &#x201c;I think there&#x2019;s less pressure for something to be done right now. But clearly people expect Congress to legislate in response to what happened in the Gulf. And I think we&#x2019;ve got good legislation teed up that we ought to get to.&#x201d;   Reid is being lobbied aggressively by Democrats to tack a renewable electricity standard onto the oil-spill focused bill. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said last week that some renewable energy advocates count as many as 62 senators ready to support the legislation.   &#x201c;I feel he&#x2019;s being receptive if he can be convinced the votes are there,&#x201d; Udall said.   Reid's office did not respond to a request for comment.   Bingaman said he&#x2019;s not had a chance to examine any of the whip counts on the renewable electricity standard, an issue that he addressed last year with a committee-passed bill. &#x201c;I haven&#x2019;t seen it, and I haven&#x2019;t had a chance to talk to the individuals on the list to be sure they&#x2019;re ready to go,&#x201d; he said.   Carol Browner, the White House&#x2019;s top energy and climate adviser, said on NBC&#x2019;s &#x201c;Meet the Press&#x201d; last Sunday that there&#x2019;s &#x201c;potentially&#x201d; still a chance to get controversial climate legislation signed into law during the lame duck session by conferencing a Senate-passed energy bill with the cap-and-trade measure that cleared the House in June 2009.   But Bingaman is skeptical on that front. &#x201c;I think it&#x2019;s going to be difficult for the Senate to pass any kind of cap-and-trade legislation,&#x201d; he said. &#x201c;I&#x2019;ve thought that all along. I&#x2019;ve said that many times. And I think that&#x2019;s still the case.&#x201d;   Bingaman is on a tour of New Mexico during the opening week of the August recess. He made several stops on Thursday in Carlsbad, including at a visitor center near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant where intermediate-level nuclear waste is permanently buried more than 2,000 feet underground. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Dust and the EPA</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7329</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AgInfo.net</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[AgInfo.net]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7329</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Farm and Ranch August 12, 2010 The Environmental  Protection Agency is still considering tightening national air standards  for dust, a move strongly opposed by much of agriculture. Ron Gaskill  is an air quality specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Gaskill: “The EPA is suggesting that in coarse dust the agency could  [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Farm and Ranch August 12, 2010 The Environmental  Protection Agency is still considering tightening national air standards  for dust, a move strongly opposed by much of agriculture. Ron Gaskill  is an air quality specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Gaskill: “The EPA is suggesting that in coarse dust the agency could  either keep the level the same or it even has, because the science is  unsubstantiated, could go down to a level half of what it is right now.  It suggests the EPA has that much latitude.”

Gaskill says it is impossible for farming and ranching operations to escape such a tough standard, they all produce dust.

Gaskill: “You’ve got mitigation measures that would have to be  employed to keep the dust at low levels. We don‘t exactly know what they  are right now. But more importantly EPA hasn‘t, even at this point,  indicated that there is a serious health hazard with the existing dust  situation. So, as far as we are concerned there is no real science at  this point to base any kind of decision other than what we are under  right now.”

The current air quality standard have been in effect since 2006 and  the EPA is required by law to review the National Ambient Air Quality  Standards every five years.

The EPA will issue a final policy document in September and a  proposed rule by February of 2011. Final action on the issue is expected  in October of next year.

I’m Bob Hoff and that’s the Northwest Farm and Ranch Report on Northwest Aginfo Net.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Washington Insider: 2012 Farm Bill, Lame Duck Congressional Session, Wheat Production, New York Times Column and EPA</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7323</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:43:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7323</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Grassley Again Seeks to Reduce Payment Limitations

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) continues to call for limiting farm payments to $250,000 per entity, but he expects no immediate action on a proposal he introduced with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) that would do just that.
Grassley said he and Feingold introduced the measure well in advance of the 2012 [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Grassley Again Seeks to Reduce Payment Limitations

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) continues to call for limiting farm payments to $250,000 per entity, but he expects no immediate action on a proposal he introduced with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) that would do just that.
Grassley said he and Feingold introduced the measure well in advance of the 2012 farm bill deliberation to let people know that he’s not giving up on his plans to limit farm payments as a means to cut the deficit. Grassley has tried to reduce the payment limits in the last two farm bills but was unsuccessful both times.
“We have nothing against big farmers,” Grassley said. “Big farmers can continue to get big if they want to, but we feel that without having a reasonable payment limitation that we’re subsidizing big farmers to get bigger.”
Grassley said there is now more public scrutiny on federal spending and the deficit. “The farm program is one of those many issues where we can save money, and people are very concerned about the deficit so this very great concern at the grassroots about the deficit, I think, is going to help us.”
The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes farm program payment limitations. 

House Rejects Proposal Pledging No Lame-Duck Session
 
The House Tuesday voted down a proposal by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) pledging not to convene between November and January except in the case of a national emergency. The failed resolution was an attempt by Republicans to avoid a lame-duck session where there is concern controversial climate change legislation would be passed before the new Congress convenes in January.
 
“Democrats are trying to avoid accountability by delaying the passage of a national energy tax and other unpopular policies until after Election Day,” Price said. “Some might think that is a good way to override the will of the public, but it is a terrible way to govern. A lame-duck session should not be used as a post-election blitz to impose liberal programs that Americans do not support.”
 
In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, Carol Browner, President Barack Obama’s top energy and climate adviser, said the administration is not conceding defeat on sweeping climate change legislation and that a bill “potentially” could be passed after the November election.
 
Vilsack: Wheat Production ‘Robust’ Enough to Avoid Shortage
 
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said wheat production in the United States and other countries is “robust” enough to avoid a global wheat shortage despite Russia’s decision to halt grain exports because of serious drought. 

“There are other countries, including the United States, where wheat production is steady and relatively robust enough not to put us in a situation where we were several years ago when there was a potential shortage globally,” Vilsack said in Ottawa, Canada on Tuesday. “Working with our Canadian friends and others in the (European Union) we’ll be able to deal with the difficulties Russia’s situation created.”

Russia is experiencing its worst drought in a century which has reduced crop prospects and prompted the nation to halt all grain exports from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31.
 
New York Times Longs for More Farmers in Senate
 
An editorial in today’s New York Times said it is refreshing that Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) is spending part of the August recess harvesting wheat.
 
“Congress used to be dominated by farmers, and it is unfortunate that Mr. Tester and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa are the only ones left in the Senate who still actively work the fields. If more members had a life outside of campaigning and lawmaking, it might help put petty political disputes in a little perspective,” according to the editorial.
“Some nostalgics maintain the Senate was more functional in the days when many of its farmer-members used the spring and summer recesses to plant and harvest. That may be a myth, but it is good to know at least one senator is still firmly earthbound.”
Columnist: ‘EPA Trying to Make Farming Obsolete’
 

In an opinion column, Rick Jordahal, associate editor of Pork Magazine, said the Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reduce dust on farms represents “an unprecedented battle to end U.S. farming as we know it.” Through onerous regulations, “EPA is trying single-handed to make farming obsolete,” Jordahl opined.

“The EPA Draft Policy Assessment released last month would set the most stringent regulation of dust in U.S. history. The latest proposal would reduce the acceptable amount of dust to a level twice as stringent as the current standard, which, for agriculture, is already very difficult to attain,” Jordahl wrote.

]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Vilsack: Biofuels, young farmers key to rural economy</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7321</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:30:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7321</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Speaking to state Farm Bureau presidents on July 13 at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Council of Presidents meeting in Washington, D.C., Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commended the nation’s farmers and ranchers for their productivity, conservation efforts and contributions to the economy.
The secretary said that agriculture deserves more respect for its economic benefits. He said [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Speaking to state Farm Bureau presidents on July 13 at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Council of Presidents meeting in Washington, D.C., Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commended the nation’s farmers and ranchers for their productivity, conservation efforts and contributions to the economy.
The secretary said that agriculture deserves more respect for its economic benefits. He said that agriculture provides one out of 12 jobs, and he forecasts that this year’s agricultural trade surplus will be around $28 billion. That compares to an ag trade surplus of $23 billion and a nonag trade deficit of $671 billion in 2009.
“It’s hard to get people in this town to pay attention to this,” he said. “You would never know from listening to most of them that agriculture is creating jobs and has a trade surplus.”
Vilsack was most passionate, though, in speaking about the potential of biofuels production and the need to help young people get into farming. The secretary said that the nation should focus on the production of biofuels as a “core competency,” particularly in rural areas.
“This is a passion of mine, because it’s a linchpin to improving the rural economy,” he said. “I want you to know I am really focused on this.”
Vilsack said that when he took office last year there was no real plan for how to achieve the nation’s biofuels objectives, including the 36 billion gallon Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) by 2022.
“If we were serious about this, we would have had a plan 20 years ago, 10 years ago, two years ago. We have a plan now,” he said.
The plan, released June 23, concludes, among other things, that a rapid build-up is needed to meet the RFS targets for cellulosic biofuels; delivery infrastructure needs are being addressed, but a careful assessment of barriers to development is needed; and even by conservative estimates the farm sector is able to produce a diverse complement of feedstocks to make the biofuels industry a truly national effort.
Vilsack said he expected EPA would approve, this fall, an adjustment in the federally approved ethanol-gasoline blend rate. “If it were up to me, we’d have it today,” he said. The current rate is 10 percent ethanol. Ethanol groups and AFBF are calling for an increase up to 15 percent to boost demand and give the industry room to grow.
Keeping young people on farms and fostering new entrants into farming also is a key to rural development, according to Vilsack. More than a quarter of U.S. farmers were 65 or older in 2007, according to the Census of Agriculture. The average age of farmers went from 50 in 1978 to 57 in 2007.
“That trend line is not good for rural America or the country,” Vilsack warned.
He talked about past efforts to put 100,000 new police officers on the street or address teacher shortages. “I hope you never personally need a police officer,” he said, “but the reality is on a daily basis each of us needs a farmer. We should challenge the nation to figure out ways to create 100,000 new farmers.”
Those efforts could include mentoring programs, creating ways for new farmers to build “sweat equity” and providing more training, according to Vilsack. He indicated that the issue would be one of his priorities in the upcoming farm bill debate.
Vilsack also talked about the dairy industry and said that the Dairy Industry Advisory Committee would hold its third meeting in August. He noted that the number of dairy farms in the U.S. has gone from 110,000 to 65,000 over the last decade, and said that dairy farmers still face serious economic challenges following the plunge in prices in late 2008 through much of 2009. The advisory committee was established last August to review milk price volatility and recommend ways to create more stability and profitability for dairy farmers.
On immigration, he said the issue has become difficult for politicians, but the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. Americans, he added, need to realize that without adequate farm labor, they will either pay higher food prices or have to depend more on food imports.
“This is not just a labor issue or a border-state issue,” he said. “It’s an American issue.”
Speaking about trade, the secretary said that USDA was focused on providing more resources to market opening programs such as the Foreign Market Development Cooperator program, which funds overseas promotional activities. For every dollar in trade and export assistance, he said, there’s about a $35 return on investment in terms of export sales.
He also noted that the administration had made progress on bilateral trade issues, including persuading Russia, the No. 1 foreign market for U.S. poultry, to accept poultry from processors that stop using chlorine as an antimicrobial treatment. Russia banned poultry from several major U.S. suppliers in early 2010 over concerns about the safety of commonly used chlorine treatments.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Veterinarians in Demand; Help Protect Our Food Supply</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7319</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7319</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[America faces a farm animal vet shortage like never before, leaving many farmers and ranchers wondering who they will call the next time their livestock needs emergency care.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine you’re a rancher. It’s 2 a.m. and a cow giving birth needs  professional medical attention. The only problem is that the nearest  veterinarian is 100 miles away. For a growing number of livestock  producers across the country, this emergency scenario is a harsh  reality. America faces a farm animal vet shortage like never before,  leaving many farmers and ranchers wondering who they will call the next  time their livestock needs emergency care.

A total of 1,300 U.S. counties have less than one food animal vet per  25,000 farm animals. Approximately 500 counties with more than 5,000  farm animals have no large animal vet at all. The Bureau of Labor  Statistics predicts a 33 percent increase in demand for large animal  vets by 2016. That equates to roughly an additional 22,000 jobs to fill.  Many in the industry are understandably concerned about the future  availability of veterinarian services.

If this troubling trend continues, farmers and ranchers won’t be the  only ones feeling the pressure. Veterinarians are the front-line defense  against animal disease. According to the American Veterinary Medical  Association, the growing shortage of food-animal vets could weaken  long-established protocols for identifying and eradicating animal  diseases, some of which could be transmitted to humans.

Admission to veterinary schools is highly competitive. While  universities see the need for more students, some educators and  officials have said they prefer not to increase class sizes, in order to  maintain educational quality. Further compounding the issue, most  veterinary school graduates prefer to pursue a companion-animal practice  and live in a metropolitan area. Approximately 2,500 students graduate  each year from the 28 accredited veterinary medicine programs across the  country.

A single veterinary student incurs on average $106,000 in school loan  debt over the course of his or her studies. Naturally, after completing  their education, many seek to find the best income source possible.  Many students who might otherwise pursue a large-animal practice choose  to work in larger urban areas in order to pay back loans sooner.

Thankfully, this crisis is not occurring without notice from industry  and congressional eyes. In recent years, legislation has been proposed  that would provide incentives to students who start practices and work  as food-animal veterinarians. Two programs are currently in place that  aim to entice students to consider working as food-animal vets.

The AVMA and its charitable organization, the American Veterinary  Medical Association, have developed the Food Animal Veterinarian  Recruitment and Retention Program. This debt forgiveness program is  available to students who commit to four years of employment working  with food animals. This program is projected to support 50 large-animal  veterinarians over a five-year period.

A government program sponsored by the Agriculture Department, the  Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, will pay $25,000 per year  for qualified loans to eligible students. Students must agree to work  for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture for three years in  areas with a significant shortage of food-animal veterinarians.

Unfortunately, under this program, government dollars awarded to vet  students are currently subject to federal income tax. The American Farm  Bureau Federation is working to change that by supporting legislation  that exempts federal and state funds received under such programs from  being taxed. If the VMLRP were tax-exempt, one additional student for  every three could be supported and additional funding would not be  required. The proposal is not without precedent, as VMLRP’s counterpart  for human medicine, National Health Service Corps, allocates tax-free  loans for students in the medical, dental and mental health fields.

Regardless of your involvement in animal agriculture, whether it’s at  the ranch or the restaurant, the security and productivity of America’s  food supply depends heavily upon food-animal vets. They provide  essential services around the clock and the calendar. When you have the  opportunity to talk with young people about career choices, don’t forget  to mention a rewarding career in veterinary medicine.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>U.S. farm group wants crackdown on meatpackers</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7317</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Reuters</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Reuters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7317</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[OMAHA, Neb., Aug 10 (Reuters) -  A grass-roots group of U.S. farmers and ranchers on Tuesday called for tighter government oversight of beef and poultry companies, charging that corporate monopolies are unfairly squeezing independent producers.

The outcry is aimed at rallying support for the Agriculture Department&#8217;s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), which is [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[OMAHA, Neb., Aug 10 (Reuters) -  A grass-roots group of U.S. farmers and ranchers on Tuesday called for tighter government oversight of beef and poultry companies, charging that corporate monopolies are unfairly squeezing independent producers.

The outcry is aimed at rallying support for the Agriculture Department's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), which is completing a new rule aimed at promoting fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry. GIPSA published the rule in June and a comment period expires Nov 22.

Competition in the U.S. meat industry is also getting the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice which is holding a forum on industry antitrust concerns in Colorado on Aug. 27.

The group of farmers and ranchers meeting in Omaha this week are working to rally support for the GIPSA rule and to beat back an intense lobbying effort by the corporate meat companies and organizations working to weaken regulation.

Supporters of tighter regulations said unfair and anti-competitive actions by corporate meat companies are hurting producers while boosting profits for meat packers.

They say despite rising demand for beef, independent producers are struggling with declining profitability as more of their share of the prices consumers pay for beef shifts to meatpackers.

"All we want is a fair deal for the farmers ... to be fair and competitive," said Fred Stokes, executive director of the Organization for Competitive Markets, which made meat industry regulation the key topic of its food and agricultural conference in Omaha this week.

"The answer is enforcement of our antitrust laws. Right now the market is rigged," he said.

The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund-United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and the National Farmers Union are among the organizations supporting the GIPSA rule-making, which was called for in the 2008 Farm Bill.

On the other side are the American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council and other livestock and poultry industry groups who say the new regulations will be costly and burdensome to business.

Tyson (TSN.N [1]) CEO Donnie Smith said the current market system encourages and rewards farmers who are progressive, innovative, and efficient. He said the new rules would hurt those farmers and favor less effective farmers.

"This would take money out of the pockets of our most progressive, most efficient producers and put it in the pockets of the least progressive growers. It doesn't seem to me that is fair," said Smith in an interview with Reuters.

Tyson has about 6,000 contracted poultry growers and works with an estimated 20,000 independent livestock producers.

"We just think that what this rule would do is, it is going to add more regulation and more cost without adding any more value," Smith said.

Several U.S. lawmakers have expressed opposition to the proposed GIPSA rule and more than a dozen farm-state senators have written to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack with concerns.

But RCALF CEO Bill Bullard said the U.S. live cattle industry is "under siege" as a shrinking percentage of live cattle are sold on the cash market -- the basis for transparent price discovery -- and more are sold through contracts to packers.

"You have just a few meatpackers who act as gatekeepers who then decide who will and who will not have timely access to the marketplace. The alarm sirens couldn't be wailing any louder."

Separately, OCM's Stokes said his organization was also putting together litigation over misuse of checkoff funds by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association identified in a recent independent audit. NCBA officials have said they are working to correct any mistakes.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=TSN.N]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>AFBF Backing Lincoln/Kyl Amendment Over Feinstein Bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7313</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7313</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The American Farm Bureau Federation is supporting an amendment to the small business bill by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.) that would set the estate tax exemption at $5 million with a 35 percent maximum rate. AFBF has not taken a position on a recently introduced estate tax bill by Sen. Diane [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The American Farm Bureau Federation is supporting an amendment to the small business bill by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.) that would set the estate tax exemption at $5 million with a 35 percent maximum rate. AFBF has not taken a position on a recently introduced estate tax bill by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.).
  
The Feinstein bill, S. 3664, the Family Farm Estate Tax Referral Act of 2010, would defer estate taxes on farms and ranches if a number of conditions are met. Some of the conditions include that the farm must be passed on to an individual or family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operation for at least five years, and the heirs must continue to use the land for farming purposes.
  
A “recapture tax” would be owed if the farm or ranch was subsequently sold outside the family or was no longer used for farming or ranching. The tax due would be based on the value of the estate at the time the property is sold or ceases to be used for farming or ranching. 
  
AFBF supports the Lincoln/Kyl amendment because it seeks a permanent forgiveness of estate taxes while the Feinstein bill is a deferral with taxes owed if property were ever sold outside the family or ceased to be used for agriculture.
 
In addition, the Lincoln/Kyl amendment provides “no strings attached” simple estate tax relief, while the Feinstein bill is a complicated proposal that will continue to require estate tax planning.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Renewed effort to lure doctors to rural areas faces obstacles</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7307</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7307</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Nearly 5,000 recent medical school graduates accepted federal grants to pay off tuition and school loans averaging $150,000 per student. The awards come with contracts that obligate the young doctors to remain in what are typically rural areas for three to five years. The corps hopes to recruit another 2,800 students next year.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ESMONT, VA. -- Sarah Carricaburu slipped her sleek new iPhone into her purse for the day. With no signal here deep in the woods, it's useless. She swiveled away from her desktop computer, which can't access the Internet, and glanced at the manila folders of patient records neatly stacked on a shelf by nurses.

"I grew up in the age of electronic medical records," said Carricaburu,  33, a primary care physician who was raised in the Washington suburbs.  "Coming here was like stepping back in time. I would like to stay in a  community health-care setting, but here I didn't feel like I had the  resources to do my job. You're cut off."

Carricaburu's choice of whether to stay or go is not just about her own career satisfaction. Her 12 colleagues at the Southern Albemarle Family Practice  have a vested interest in her staying on, as the clinic's director and  its one full-time physician, beyond the three years that she is under a  contract with the federal government that will help pay off school  loans. She is also a test case for the Obama administration's goal,  under the new health-care law, to bring thousands of young primary care  doctors to underserved areas such as this unincorporated town of 1,200  -- and keep them there.

The administration recently invested more than $1 billion from the  stimulus and the health-care law into the National Health Services Corps  to beef up doctor recruitment. It's more money than the 40-year-old  agency has ever had, said Rebecca Spitzgo, associate administrator for  the Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service.

Nearly 5,000 recent medical school graduates accepted federal grants to  pay off tuition and school loans averaging $150,000 per student. The  awards come with contracts that obligate the young doctors to remain in  what are typically rural areas for three to five years. The corps hopes  to recruit another 2,800 students next year. A report  by the corps' advisory council estimated that 27,000 primary care  physicians are needed to meet the needs of about 45 million Americans in  medically underserved areas.

But after facing decisions similar to the one Carricaburu is weighing,  several young doctors who were interviewed said they are struggling with  whether to spend a career in rural settings. Experts said they expect  retention to be a problem.

Carricaburu embodied the traits that President Obama  extolled in stump speeches about reform. She earned straight A's  through Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville and graduated from  Johns Hopkins University with a 3.7 grade-point average. She was one of  two students in her graduating class at Northwestern University's  Feinberg School of Medicine who chose to become a family practitioner  rather than one of the high-wage specialists the school is known for  producing.

Carricaburu made that choice despite the stigma that others attach to  students who choose family medicine. "When I told one of my professors  that it was what I wanted to do, he said, 'You're too smart for that.' "But Carricaburu had a mission. "I just always felt that I really wanted  to help people who wouldn't otherwise get help," she said. "It's like a  cliche, but it's true."

 Daily inconveniences


The Southern Albemarle Family Practice, where Carricaburu sees about 18 patients daily, sits a few miles from the real-life Walton's Mountain, made famous by the TV show about a homespun family that lived there.

It's surrounded by trees as tall as skyscrapers, emerald soybean farms  and vineyards. To get there from her townhouse in Charlottesville, about  46 miles round trip, Carricaburu takes a two-lane highway that curves  and dives on sloping hills, and a one-lane bridge where crossing cars  are blind to oncoming traffic.

Carricaburu directs a staff of 12, including two part-time doctors. She  said she enjoys the work. On a Thursday, she examined patient Edwin  Denby, 70, who got careless while doing yardwork and poked his eye on a  bush. Next, she played with Nikisha Woody's 1-year-old son Jordan as he  romped through the examination room.

But she was unprepared for the daily inconveniences of rural living:  well water in the clinic's kitchen sink that smells of rotten eggs;  being unable to use the iPhone's Epocrates app, which helps doctors  identify and prescribe medicine; the dial-up Internet that crawls along  on a single computer shared by the clinic; the 40-minute drive to a  grocery store; the lack of dating potential.

"I don't think I'm a rural kind of person," Carricaburu said. "I like  having stuff around. I like the ability to go out to dinner and do  cultural things."

The National Health Service Corps should make rural offices more  friendly to technologically savvy young doctors if it wants them to  stay, she said.

A three-year federal contract that provided Carricaburu with $50,000 to  help pay off $200,000 in school-related debt will expire in September  2011. As she decides her future, Deborah Anderson, an assistant manager  at Southern Albemarle, and administrators at Central Virginia Health  Services, its parent organization, watch anxiously.

Doctor turnover in rural Virginia clinics creates a void in services.  Patients who develop a relationship with doctors feel rejected and are  reluctant to bond with new doctors.

"Patients have been very hesitant and angry," Anderson said. "The  typical question they ask new doctors is, 'How long are you going to  stay?' They are very reluctant to get to know new doctors."

The staff does not want Carricaburu to leave. "We were a little worried about her personal life," Anderson said.

 Colleagues' concerns


The staff had a reason to worry.

Before Carricaburu arrived at the Southern Albemarle Family Practice in  August 2008, when there was no full-time doctor, "we had to let patients  go," said M. Denise Williams, a doctor who works three days a week.

In Esmont and hundreds of other areas where doctors are scarce, the  impact can be devastating. Residents delay examinations until conditions  are chronic and more costly to treat, doctors and nurses said. Diabetes  leads to amputations and heart conditions lead to strokes.

With so much at stake, the clinic's staff members started to pay close  attention to Carricaburu. They made mental notes when she expressed  concern, here and there, about the long trip from Charlottesville, about  the lack of basic technology, about not meeting guys.

Workers at the clinic couldn't rely on the National Health Service  Corps' attempts to brighten the lives of isolated workers: connecting  young doctors through the Internet and such. Carricaburu could barely  log on to the Internet, and she didn't read beyond the first few  chapters of the book the corps gave her. In "Transforming Burnout: A  Simple Guide to Self-Renewal," the author loftily counsels doctors to  overcome their doldrums by finding spiritual meaning in their work.

Williams and another part-time doctor, Margaret Hobson, took action.  They set Carricaburu up on dates. The first guy, introduced by Williams  early this year, "just didn't work out," she said. But Hobson's  recommendation -- Rick Regan, a corporate pilot who lives near Front  Royal -- turned Carricaburu's head.

Whenever he visits Charlottesville, about three times a week,  Carricaburu beams. After a recent Wednesday visit, Carricaburu smiled a  little more as she walked the halls.

In a perfect scenario for the Southern Albemarle staff and the Obama  administration, Carricaburu and Regan would fall in love, marry and  settle in Esmont or nearby Buckingham County, as Williams did years ago  with her husband.

But Williams realizes that Carricaburu, who enjoys museum hopping and in-line skating, is not entirely like her.

"I kind of like being a small- town doctor," said Williams, 58.

Williams has made her career part of her small-town life, priding  herself on knowing patients by their first names, making house calls and  dabbling in local politics. Her subscription to the New Yorker is about  as close to the big city as she gets.

On a Wednesday, all the patients in the clinic's waiting room were there  to see Williams. "She knows every single person who comes here," said  Tracy Armstrong, 45, a patient. "She knows everyone in town. She's very  professional, but also knows how to deal with people who are hesitant to  come in here. She's amazing."

When a laborer named David Strong burst through the door, blood oozing  from a hand that he had accidentally sliced open with a box cutter,  Williams stitched him up. Strong, 37, grimaced and squirmed in his  soiled muscle shirt, and Williams gave him a no-nonsense stare.

"I thought you were tough," she said.

When the workday ended, paper medical records from the visits piled up  in Williams's office. It took her three hours to record them. Electronic  records would shorten her hours, Williams acknowledged, but she dreads  the training it would take to learn to use them.

And she dreads having an increased workload at the clinic if Carricaburu  leaves. Williams sees about 20 patients a day, equal to Hobson. They  would have to see some of Carricaburu's 18 patients in her absence.

"Dr. Hobson and I just couldn't handle it," Williams said.

Through the health-care overhaul, the Obama administration has worked to  lighten their load with doctors such as Carricaburu, but nobody at the  clinic is sure that the situation will work out. Carricaburu said that  she admires Williams and Hobson, but that she's simply not like them.  She needs different tools.

"The other doctors are older. They learned stuff on the job," she said.  "That's not how I was trained. I feel like I'm going backward."]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Senate Fails to Act on Estate Tax</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7304</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7304</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The Senate adjourned until Sept. 13 without addressing the estate tax issue.

If Congress fails to act before Jan. 1, estate taxes will be reinstated with a $1 million per person exemption and 55 percent top rate. Farm Bureau is supporting a proposal offered by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to phase-in a [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Senate adjourned until Sept. 13 without addressing the estate tax issue.

If Congress fails to act before Jan. 1, estate taxes will be reinstated with a $1 million per person exemption and 55 percent top rate. Farm Bureau is supporting a proposal offered by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to phase-in a $5 million exemption and 35 percent tax rate over 10 years. Stepped up basis is included in their proposal.

The bipartisan Lincoln/Kyl amendment offers the most estate tax relief and the best chance for passage with 10 Democrats already on record in support of the proposal from last year’s budget amendment vote. The purpose of Farm Bureau’s “Put Death Taxes to Rest” campaign is to secure the 60 votes needed to pass the Lincoln/Kyl proposal.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Lincoln, Chambliss Introduce Legislation to Halt EPA’s Effort to Over-Regulate Farmers, Foresters</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7298</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Senate Agriculture Committee Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Senate Agriculture Committee Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7298</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Washington — U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) today announced they have introduced legislation that aims to clarify that additional permits are not required for pesticide application in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  The [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Washington — U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) today announced they have introduced legislation that aims to clarify that additional permits are not required for pesticide application in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  The bill, S. 3735, will bring legal and regulatory certainty for our farmers, foresters and ranchers regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent actions related to the Clean Water Act.
“Subjecting our farmers, foresters, and ranchers to an additional layer of bureaucracy under the Clean Water Act was never Congress’ intent,” said Lincoln. “Our legislation is very simple: as long as a producer is complying with FIFRA, then no Clean Water Act permit will be required.  During the more than 35 years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has never required a permit for the application of FIFRA-registered crop protection products.  Our bill would extend this common-sense approach and avoid duplicative, unnecessary burdens on our farmers, foresters, and ranchers.”
“Once again the EPA has overreached its authority, causing serious consequences our agriculture sector,” said Sen. Chambliss.  “By refusing to defend current law and its own reasonable regulations, the EPA is unfortunately in the position to place unnecessary, burdensome and duplicative permit requirements on producers, mosquito control districts and states.  Our legislation would simply prevent the EPA from imposing an erroneous regulation that does absolutely nothing to further protect or enhance the environment.”
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said, “American Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports legislation introduced today by Senators Lincoln and Chambliss to remedy the harmful effects of a court decision that puts farmers at risk of unnecessary and burdensome regulation.  This legislation does nothing more than clarify what has been the situation for nearly forty years – that lawful application of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not trigger regulatory requirements in other programs.  Congress must step up and take action to clarify the questions raised by a flawed court ruling that, if left to stand, will have ramifications for farmers and ranchers around the country.  Farmers know the label on each chemical they use is the law of the land and that they must use chemicals properly.  Having additional regulations and bureaucratic red tape will not improve food safety or the environment. We commend the senators for their leadership on this important issue.”
“The rice industry has been greatly concerned about the overreaching of the Clean Water Act into areas that have been historically and successfully regulated by FIFRA, and the additional burdens that this proposal is going to bring to everyone that uses pesticides; and while we don't believe that this proposed permit system applies to rice production, we are pleased that Senators Lincoln and Chambliss are stepping up to provide legislation to correct this misinterpretation by the courts. The US rice industry works hard to provide a safe and affordable crop to both domestic and international consumers and the ability to do that is jeopardized whenever laws that were never intended to regulate a process are mistakenly used to do just that.  We believe that this legislation will put the Clean Water Act back on the course originally intended by Congress,” said  Ray Vester, Arkansas rice producer and Chairman of the USA Rice Federation's Environmental Regulatory Subcommittee.
“Once again Senator Lincoln is demonstrating her leadership and support for those issues important to Arkansas by joining Senator Chambliss in introducing this common sense bill that will allow the continued responsible, efficient, and cost effective use of pesticides by the forestry and agriculture community. We applaud Senators Lincoln and Chambliss on their quick response to this very important issue,” said Max Braswell, Executive Vice President of the Arkansas Forestry Association.
“We applaud the efforts of Senators Lincoln and Chambliss in introducing legislation to allow the use of pesticides or herbicides in forestry operations without the need of a Clean Water Act permit so long as the pesticide or herbicide is being used in accordance with labeling requirements.  The requirement of a permit would be yet another stumbling block to an industry struggling to survive during financially hard times.  The timber industry is vital to Arkansas’ economy and Arkansas families and we are grateful for this effort to support the sustainability of our industry through some very difficult challenges,” said Larry Boccarossa, Executive Director, Arkansas Timber Producers Association.
“The proposed NPDES permit for pesticide use would provide no additional environmental protection yet would impose additional regulatory burdens on U.S. cotton producers. We commend Senators Lincoln and Chambliss for their foresight and diligence on this new bill which would ensure that U.S. agriculture is not subject to unnecessary and redundant regulations,” said Ronny Lee, National Cotton Council Environmental Task Force member from Bronwood, GA.
“This bill will restore certainty for cotton farmers who use crop protectant products safely and responsibly.  Pesticides have been regulated successfully by FIFRA for years.  This bill will prevent EPA from imposing unnecessary, duplicative, and confusing regulatory burdens on farmers,” said National Cotton Council Chairman Eddie Smith, a Floydada, TX, cotton producer.
“NCGA is pleased that Senators Lincoln and Chambliss have taken a bold step towards restoring common sense pesticide regulations and appreciates the bipartisan effort,” NCGA President Darrin Ihnen, a farmer in Hurley, S.D., said.  “The new permitting program is scheduled to take effect in April 2011, and it is imperative that Congress take action on this bill prior to that date.”
“Senator Lincoln’s bill ensuring that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has primacy over the use of pesticides is a win for both the environment and agriculture. Extremely robust science must be collected under FIFRA proving the safety of a pesticide to water and a number of other environmental components.  The Sixth Circuit decision requiring water permits for pesticides would result in a bureaucratic morass, and unnecessary, costly and time-consuming procedures for farmers and applicators.  This would notably hamper their ability to provide food, fiber, bio-fuel and to protect the public health.  Senator Lincoln deserves the appreciation of American farmers and farm-service providers for all of her efforts to repeal the 6th Circuit’s decision in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927,” said Andrew D. Moore, National Agricultural Aviation Association Executive Director.
The bill makes it clear that producers that are in compliance with requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) do not need to obtain Clean Water Act permits. The bill will protect public health and safeguard the environment by ensuring that producers are in strict compliance with FIFRA while simultaneously eliminating duplicative regulatory obligations that would be imposed if Clean Water Act permits are required.
During the more than 35 years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has never required a Clean Water Act permit for the application of FIFRA-registered farm chemicals.  The FIFRA Paperwork Reduction Act will prevent EPA from doing so in the future.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>WH official: &#8216;Potential&#8217; for climate change in lame-duck</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7296</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7296</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[President Barack Obama is still committed to pushing the bill through the Senate, and that there was "potential" for the bill to come up in a post-election, lame-duck session of Congress.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Carol Browner, the White House's top energy and environmental adviser, refused on Sunday to shut the door on passing climate change legislation this year — even though Senate Democratic leaders have conceded they lack the votes and have punted on the volatile issue.

Browner said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Barack Obama is still committed to pushing the bill through the Senate, and that there was "potential" for the bill to come up in a post-election, lame-duck session of Congress.

Browner's remarks will almost certainly give ammunition to Republicans who say Democrats are plotting to do mischief in a lame-duck session — even though top congressional Democrats have thrown cold water on an overly ambitious lame-duck agenda.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) later said on the same program that it's "outrageous" for Democrats to consider passing the bill after the elections.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Farm bill discussion underway on Capitol Hill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7294</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:10:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AgWeekly</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[AgWeekly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7294</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Chances are good the 2012 Farm Bill will be negotiated and written during a difficult economic period.

As history indicates, that means cuts to some farm programs are likely. As Congress begins the debate over crafting new farm legislation the American Farm Bureau Federation has outlined five key principles that should be followed as the new [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Chances are good the 2012 Farm Bill will be negotiated and written during a difficult economic period.

As history indicates, that means cuts to some farm programs are likely. As Congress begins the debate over crafting new farm legislation the American Farm Bureau Federation has outlined five key principles that should be followed as the new legislation is written.

The biggest challenge will be the budget. The budget baseline for many farm bill programs has decreased since the passage of the last farm bill in 2008. More than 30 programs included in the last bill do not have any baseline at all and the standard re-insurance agreement currently being negotiated threatens to rob even more spending baseline.

Most farmers are generally supportive of the safety net provided in the 2008 farm bill, but some believe the crop disaster program is inadequate. In some cases the coverage may be duplicative, according to AFBF.

Crop disaster assistance is provided to farmers to help protect crops from natural disasters. This and many other farm programs help keep farms solvent during difficult economic periods. These programs, while some need reform, are vital to maintaining a domestic supply of food and in turn they help maintain our nation's security.

The 2012 farm bill will be written in a difficult budget environment, but AFBF believes that five key principles should be followed during the rewrite process.
  

The Farm Bureau's five farm bill principles as follows:

The options AFBF supports will be fiscally responsible.

AFBF believes the basic funding structure of the 2008 farm bill should not be altered. In other words, money should not be shifted from one title of the farm bill to another.
  

The proposals AFBF supports will aim to benefit all agricultural sectors.

AFBF believes world trade rulings should be considered.

And AFBF believes consideration should be given to the stable business environment that is critical to success in agriculture.

An AFBF spokesman testifying in front of a congressional subcommittee said recently that both crop insurance and the farm bill Commodity Title programs provide the option of support to farmers based on revenue losses and not strictly price or yield risk.

Yet, despite this convergence of farm programs and crop insurance, there are still many farmers who fall between the cracks and have little protection from volatile markets and weather.

The bottom line is that crop insurance and farm programs have changed significantly over the past 20 years and these changes have left producers with different safety nets.

While many concepts, such as whole-farm revenue options, will undoubtedly be floated during the farm bill rewrite, Farm Bureau intends to keep an open mind, but will be guided by its five farm bill principles.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Farmers Will Work on Lawmakers During August Recess</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7272</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:54:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7272</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[August is probably the best time of year for most people to speak to their congressional representatives. That’s because the nation’s lawmakers leave Capitol Hill to visit their home districts during the August recess. Many Farm Bureau members are making a point to talk to lawmakers about two issues this month: the estate tax and [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[August is probably the best time of year for most people to speak to their congressional representatives. That’s because the nation’s lawmakers leave Capitol Hill to visit their home districts during the August recess. Many Farm Bureau members are making a point to talk to lawmakers about two issues this month: the estate tax and an environmental issue known as the Chesapeake Bay bill. 
 
The estate tax is on the front burner now because it has changed constantly over the past 10 years and next year will hit families with a 55 percent tax bill right after the death of a loved one with an estate worth $1 million or more. 
 
Although the Chesapeake Bay bill may sound like a regional issue, Environmental Protection Agency representatives have made it very clear that they intend to use it as a model for other watershed activities around the country. The bill gives the EPA a lot of authority that the agency does not currently have. It also would confer on the federal government authorities that have traditionally been held by state and local governments. 
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>U.S. Poultry Still not Moving to Russia</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7270</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7270</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Russian importers are making new demands of the federal government regarding an agreement to allow U.S. poultry exports. U.S. poultry processors had product ready to ship when U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack learned of the new demands from Russia.
  
In January, Russian officials blocked imports of U.S. poultry meat [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Russian importers are making new demands of the federal government regarding an agreement to allow U.S. poultry exports. U.S. poultry processors had product ready to ship when U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack learned of the new demands from Russia. 
  
In January, Russian officials blocked imports of U.S. poultry meat by cutting the allowable amount of chlorine processors could use as a disinfectant. President Barack Obama stepped in at a summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in June, after which the Russians said they would accept shipments of poultry meat disinfected with substances other than chlorine.
 
According to Vilsack, the Russians asked for an extra “step” to the agreement, after USDA forwarded a list of facilities eligible to ship poultry. Talks between U.S. and Russian officials on the issue are expected to continue and the president will be asked to intercede again if necessary, Vilsack said. Russia had been the largest export market for U.S. poultry with more than $700 million in sales in 2009. 
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>EPA rejects challenge to climate rules</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7254</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7254</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[EPA’s rules have added weight for the Obama administration now that the Senate has punted for the year on plans to pass a cap-and-trade bill to address climate change.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Environmental Protection Agency Thursday rejected an effort to keep it from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying that e-mails released in last fall’s “Climategate” scandal gave it no reason to reconsider the science of global warming.

In a sternly written opinion, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said she didn’t agree with requests from the GOP attorneys general from Texas and Virginia, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other conservative groups that questioned the underlying science linking humans to global warming and also warned of the potential economic burdens from new climate rules.

EPA last December concluded that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare, a decision clearing the way this spring for climate-based regulations for new cars and trucks. Next year, the agency is expected to write standards for power plants and other major industrial sources of heat-trapping gases.

In their petitions, EPA’s opponents had highlighted stolen e-mails from prominent climate scientists that they allege showed collusion to hide contrary information debunking global warming. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had also warned that the EPA rules would lead to “unprecedented bureaucratic licensing and regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, hospitals and even schools.”

But Jackson said the groups’ arguments lack merit.

“These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination,” Jackson wrote.

Regarding the e-mails, Jackson said an agency review of the materials show “a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets.” She said four independent reviews have reached similar conclusions.

EPA’s rules have added weight for the Obama administration now that the Senate has punted for the year on plans to pass a cap-and-trade bill to address climate change.

Opponents are suing to overturn EPA’s “endangerment finding” in federal appeals court, but that case sits on hold pending Jackson’s decision to address the  preliminary requests for the agency to reconsider its decision. Oral arguments in the lawsuit are unlikely until next spring, with a final decision expected by the summer, according to lawyers tracking the case.

EPA’s critics are also trying to stop the agency on Capitol Hill. A House Appropriations subcommittee last week rejected an amendment to EPA’s annual spending bill to put a two-year hold on EPA’s climate rules for power plants. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) earlier this week filed a similar proposal to the small-business bill now on the floor, though it’s unlikely she’ll win a vote because of unrelated hurdles for the bill.

“You attack it at all fronts,” Murkowski told POLITICO on Thursday. “You go the judicial route. You go the legislative route. I think this is important to make sure we are looking at all avenues.”

President Barack Obama would most likely veto any bill that reached his desk to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, a White House official said last week.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Rep. Peterson: Cuba Trade Bill ‘Essential and Timely’</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7252</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7252</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[In a column in The Hill Thursday, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), called his bill to expand U.S. agricultural trade with Cuba and to allow U.S. citizens the right to travel freely to Cuba “essential and timely because Cuba relies on agricultural imports for the majority of its food needs.” He called the [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a column in The Hill Thursday, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), called his bill to expand U.S. agricultural trade with Cuba and to allow U.S. citizens the right to travel freely to Cuba “essential and timely because Cuba relies on agricultural imports for the majority of its food needs.” He called the U.S. policy “failed” as it does nothing to help the Cuban people and hamstrings U.S. interests.
“It isn’t every day a coalition of more than 140 organizations including Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the American Farm Bureau Federation all agree on a bill before Congress. But, in the case of the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, H.R. 4645, these groups and many more agree this is the right policy at the right time for the people of Cuba and the United States,” Peterson wrote.

“To be clear, H.R. 4645 does not end the embargo on Cuba; it only facilitates agricultural trade and opens the door for Americans to travel to Cuba. This bill maintains a cash-only policy and does not allow our banks to extend credit to Cuba. Additionally, payments would be made when products reach Cuban ports and the buyers confirm the cargo. The bill makes our agriculture trade policy toward Cuba more consistent with our practices toward other countries,” Peterson wrote.
 
Cuba Trade Bill Won’t be Considered Until September
  
Congress isn’t expected to take action on Rep. Collin Peterson’s Cuba trade bill until September, when lawmakers return from the August recess.
  
“It’s great policy,” said AFBF trade specialist Chris Garza. Unfortunately the bill is caught up in the politics of the issue. There are still many members out there, particularly those from Florida, who see any easing of the embargo as a gift to the Castros. This is not the case. This bill is about increasing U.S. agricultural exports.  We have to get beyond the politics of this issue [and] do what is right for our farmers, U.S. citizens as well as the people of Cuba. 
 
“This bill is not about opening up the U.S. market to Cuba. This bill is about [re]moving the restrictions that we have placed on our own farmers to be able to export to Cuba. There is nothing for us to lose here.  This is a gain-gain situation, a gain for U.S. farmers and a gain for the people of Cuba to be able to have quality food on their tables that comes from U.S. farmers,” Garza said.   
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7238</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7238</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[OKLAHOMA CITY &#8212; The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.

The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, &#8220;If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation&#8217;s history.&#8221; It further states, [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[OKLAHOMA CITY -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.

The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, "If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history." It further states, "We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event."

Read the letter to EPA signed by 21 senators including Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn

Many in the Oklahoma farming industry are opposed to the EPA's consideration. One farmer said the possible regulations are ridiculous.

"It's plain common sense, we don't want to do anything detrimental," said farmer Curtis Roberts. "If the dust is detrimental to us, it's going to be to everybody. We're not going to do anything to hurt ourselves or our farm."

Roberts, a fourth generation farmer and rancher in Arcadia, said regulating dust in rural areas will hurt farmers' harvest, cultivation and livelihood.

"Anytime you work ground, you're going to have dust. I don't know how they'll regulate it," Roberts said. "The regulations are going to put us down and keep us from doing things we need to be doing because of the EPA."

Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling said the rules could be detrimental to farmers across the Sooner State.

"We as an organization do not feel dust is a pollutant," Spradling said. "It would almost be impossible to comply with what's being addressed now from the EPA as in agriculture. We're doing everything we possibly can."

"It's just common sense, we don't like dust in the morning but it's something we got to live with," Roberts said]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Bipartisan blame for Senate botching energy bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7213</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Dallas Morning News</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Dallas Morning News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7213</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Not a single GOP senator would sign on to the idea of putting a price on carbon. During the Democrats' 19 months at the helm, other issues routinely catapulted ahead the climate bill. In a separate spending bill, loan guarantees for additional nuclear power projects also are endangered, potentially leaving NRG's South Texas Project in limbo.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Jul. 29, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune News Service delivered by Newstex) -- The following editorial appeared in the Dallas Morning News on Wednesday, July 28:___The much-needed and long-awaited climate change and energy bill died last week after an extended illness. The causes: a dearth of political will, assorted strategic errors and an incurable lack of leadership.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the grim announcement, pulling the plug on essential efforts to cap greenhouse gas emissions and speed the transition to renewable energy sources. He mourned the lack of votes but gathered himself quickly to point fingers, saying the absence of GOP support was "terribly disappointing."The truth is that it took two parties to doom this bill.Heaping blame on Republicans in this case is easy and reasonably justified. Not a single GOP senator would sign on to the idea of putting a price on carbon. Even Republicans who previously offered such support did an about-face and refocused their energy on derailing this legislation.But Democrats managed to hammer a few of their own nails in the coffin of a comprehensive energy bill.With Democrats controlling both chambers and a president promising to heal a planet in peril, locking down the support of majority-party senators should have been the easy part. But some Democrats wavered until the end, raising questions about possible defections.Worse, Reid couldn't bring himself to put passing this legislation at the top of his to-do list. During the Democrats' 19 months at the helm, other issues routinely catapulted ahead the climate bill. When Reid suggested in April that immigration would suddenly leapfrog energy, he lost the support of South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, a key to building the coalitions needed to gain a supermajority in the Senate.Along the way, key officials waffled on important details, trying out cap-and-trade and dabbling in cap-and-dividend proposals. Eventually, the BP (NYSE:BP)  disaster in the gulf diverted attention, too.Now Congress will wrestle with stripped-down energy legislation that bears little resemblance to its former self. In a separate spending bill, loan guarantees for additional nuclear power projects also are endangered, potentially leaving NRG's South Texas Project in limbo. A nuclear expansion is essential to weaning ourselves from fossil fuels and to limiting emissions; Congress can't afford to excise that from our energy portfolio.While some nuclear projects are imperiled, carbon caps are dead and gone in this Congress. Left undone this year will be addressing the consequences of climate change and continued dependence on foreign oil.Congress is playing a dangerous game, putting national security interests and the environment at risk. By failing to attach a price to pollution now, lawmakers force us all to pay a steeper price down the road.Leaders did us a disservice by killing off this legislation. The comprehensive energy bill _ as well as voters _ deserved better.___ Newstex ID: KRTN-0012-47426601 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>AFBF Supports Renewable Fuel Provisions in Levin Bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7190</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7190</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) has released a discussion draft of the Domestic Manufacturing and Jobs Act of 2010. The bill includes a number of renewable fuels provisions supported by Farm Bureau.
 
The legislation would extend the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit for ethanol and small ethanol producers tax credit for [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) has released a discussion draft of the Domestic Manufacturing and Jobs Act of 2010. The bill includes a number of renewable fuels provisions supported by Farm Bureau.
 
The legislation would extend the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit for ethanol and small ethanol producers tax credit for one year (through 2011). The credit would be reduced from 45 cents to 36 cents per gallon. Farm Bureau supports the continuation of VEETC at the current 45 cents per gallon level and will be sending a letter to Levin calling for an extension of the full VEETC.
 
The legislation would also extend the small ethanol tax credit for one year (through 2011). The credit would be reduced from 10 cents to 8 cents per gallon. Farm Bureau supports the extension of the small ethanol tax credit at 10 cents per gallon and will be sending a letter to Levin calling for the extension of the full small ethanol producers credit.
 
The bill would extend for one year (through 2011) the existing tariff on imported ethanol, which Farm Bureau supports. It would also reinstate the biodiesel and small biodiesel producers tax incentives for 2011, which Farm Bureau supports. It would also extend for three years (through 2013) the 50 percent investment tax credit for renewable fuel pumps. Farm Bureau supports this provision.
 
A committee markup has not yet been scheduled. 
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Bill Would Help Farmers, Communities in Bay Watershed</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7188</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7188</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act (H.R. 5509) will help farmers while also benefiting communities in the bay’s watershed. The American Farm Bureau Federation is urging the House Agriculture Committee to approve the bill when it comes up for consideration today.
 
“This bill is a commonsense approach to the work that is needed [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act (H.R. 5509) will help farmers while also benefiting communities in the bay’s watershed. The American Farm Bureau Federation is urging the House Agriculture Committee to approve the bill when it comes up for consideration today.
 
“This bill is a commonsense approach to the work that is needed in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “It offers an opportunity to improve water quality by working with farmers and ranchers. Perhaps most importantly, it provides a viable, effective alternative to other measures that view this problem as a ‘zero-sum’ game that would not just limit opportunities for agriculture in the watershed but would, in all likelihood, spell the end of agriculture for many farm families.”
 
The legislation provides important incentives and safeguards to farmers to implement additional conservation practices that go above and beyond regulatory compliance requirements, noted Stallman in a letter to committee members. 

Interstate nutrient trading opportunities and an environmental assurance program are among the incentives outlined in the bill that would help farmers as well as their communities in the bay’s watershed.  
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Obama: &#8216;Our current energy policy is unsustainable&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7181</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>USA Today</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USA Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7181</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[President Obama continued to stump for energy and climate change legislation today, despite the collapse of Senate talks on a comprehensive bill. And I intend to keep pushing for broader reform, including climate legislation, because if we've learned anything from the tragedy in the Gulf, it's that our current energy policy is unsustainable. That's what comprehensive energy and climate reform would do.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[President Obama continued to stump for energy and climate change legislation today, despite the collapse of Senate talks on a comprehensive bill.After meeting with congressional leaders today, Obama endorsed a scaled-down Senate bill that addresses the Gulf Coast oil spill and "new clean energy jobs," but called it "only the first step.""I intend to keep pushing for broader reform, including climate legislation," Obama said, "because if we've learned anything from the tragedy in the Gulf, it's that our current energy policy is unsustainable."Obama cited the need to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, as well as eliminate "deadly pollutants that threaten our air and our water and the lives and livelihoods of our people."First things first, though. Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Senate Republicans are still waiting to see a specific energy proposal from the Democratic leadership.Here's what Obama said today about energy:We also talked about the need to move forward on energy reform. The Senate is now poised to act before the August recess, advancing legislation to respond to the BP oil spill and create new clean energy jobs.That legislation is an important step in the right direction. But I want to emphasize it's only the first step. And I intend to keep pushing for broader reform, including climate legislation, because if we've learned anything from the tragedy in the Gulf, it's that our current energy policy is unsustainable.And we can't afford to stand by as our dependence on foreign oil deepens, as we keep on pumping out the deadly pollutants that threaten our air and our water and the lives and livelihoods of our people. And we can't stand by as we let China race ahead to create the clean energy jobs and industries of the future. We should be developing those renewable energy sources, and creating those high-wage, high-skill jobs right here in the United States of America.That's what comprehensive energy and climate reform would do. And that's why I intend to keep pushing this issue forward.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Judge blocks key parts of Arizona law</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7208</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7208</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The president was en route to New Jersey for a meeting with small-business owners when Bolton&#x2019;s ruling was released.   On Capitol Hill, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a staunch advocate of stricter immigration laws, said Bolton should have upheld the law in its entirety to help secure the nation&#x2019;s border with Mexico. Otherwise, &#34;I don't know where that leads us except with chaos.&#34;   Sen.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Josh Gerstein A federal judge is blocking key provisions of an Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants from taking effect Thursday as scheduled, citing the likelihood that the controversial state law will interfere with the federal government&#x2019;s authority to set immigration policy.   In 36-page ruling issued Wednesday, Judge Susan Bolton granted much of the Justice Department&#x2019;s request for a preliminary injunction against the Arizona legislation, described as the toughest law of its kind in the nation. Bolton said the most widely publicized provision in the law &#x2014; a requirement that police determine the immigration status of people they arrest or question &#x2014; was certain to result in improper, protracted detention of foreigners and U.S. citizens alike.   Portions of the law will take effect Thursday.   Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Bolton&#x2019;s ruling, on the whole, was disappointing, though she said she was &#x201c;heartened&#x201d; that the judge allowed a ban on &#x201c;sanctuary cities&#x201d; where undocumented immigrants find safe haven from law enforcement. Still, Brewer vowed, &#x201c;this fight is far from over&#x201d; and pledged to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.   When the legal battle is over, &#x201c;Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens,&#x201d; Brewer said in a statement Wednesday. &#x201c;I am deeply grateful for the overwhelmingly support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.&#x201d;   Hannah August, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said Bolton &#x201c;acted correctly&#x201d; by sidetracking key provisions of the law, known as SB1070. August&#160;reiterated the Obama administration&#x2019;s concerns that the law usurped federal authority to set immigration policy.   &#x201c;While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive,&#x201d; August said in a statement. While states can have input, she said, &#x201c;they must do so within our constitutional framework. We will continue to work toward smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws while pressing for a comprehensive approach that provides true security and strengthens accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level.&#x201d;   The White House said President Barack Obama, who criticized the law in a speech last month at American University, had no immediate comment. The president was en route to New Jersey for a meeting with small-business owners when Bolton&#x2019;s ruling was released.   On Capitol Hill, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a staunch advocate of stricter immigration laws, said Bolton should have upheld the law in its entirety to help secure the nation&#x2019;s border with Mexico. Otherwise, &#34;I don't know where that leads us except with chaos.&#34;   Sen. Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican from South Carolina, had a more positive view, calling Brewer&#x2019;s ruling a &#x201c;sort of timeout&#x201d; in the immigration debate. &#34;It stops the law from spreading because any state will have to slow down and think about this. It doesn't solve the problem. It gives us time to re-engage with each other.&#x201d;   &#34;I would like to use this judicial timeout to find some constructive path forward,&#34; said Graham. Obama should &#x201c;use this time wisely,&#x201d; work with Congress and hammer out a solution.   In her ruling, Bolton wrote that the requirement to confirm the immigration status of all arrestees &#x201c;burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,&#x201d; something that could take an indeterminate amount of time.     &#x201c;Given the large number of people who are technically &#x2018;arrested&#x2019; but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification,&#x201d; the judge wrote.   Bolton also accepted the Obama administration&#x2019;s arguments that the mandatory-check provision of the Arizona law would gum up the federal immigration enforcement system by sending tens of thousands of additional queries to the Department of Homeland Security center, which interacts with local law enforcement.   &#x201c;An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government&#x2019;s other responsibilities and priorities,&#x201d; she wrote.   Bolton also blocked enforcement of a part of the new law that makes it a state crime for an immigrant to be in Arizona without valid papers.   Bolton said the offending provisions of the Arizona law were subject to &#x201c;pre-emption&#x201d; &#x2014; a legal principle that allows federal law to override state laws in certain areas. To support her ruling, Bolton repeatedly cited a 1941 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring the registration of foreigners.   The Arizona law, formally known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was passed in April. At least seven lawsuits were filed against the state over the law, including one filed earlier this month by the Justice Department.   While much of the public outrage over the Arizona law has focused on the potential for racial profiling of Latinos, Bolton did not address that issue in her decision. Civil rights groups and individuals who sued to block the law raised such arguments, but antidiscrimination arguments were absent from the Justice Department&#x2019;s complaint.   &#x201c;The court by no means disregards Arizona&#x2019;s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns and money. Even though Arizona&#x2019;s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce pre-empted laws,&#x201d; Bolton wrote.   Bolton did not accept the entirety of the Justice Department&#x2019;s arguments; for instance, she rejected the federal government&#x2019;s request to block language aimed at reducing alien smuggling. Justice Department lawyers said the provision affected immigration and interfered with the federal government&#x2019;s ability to regulate commerce, but the judge disagreed.   The provision on transporting and harboring aliens &#x201c;does not attempt to regulate who should or should not be admitted into the United States, and it does not regulate the conditions under which legal entrants may remain in the United States,&#x201d; Bolton said. &#x201c;Therefore, the court concludes that the United States is not likely to succeed on its claim that [the provision] is an impermissible regulation of immigration,&#x201d; she wrote. &#x201c;Arizona&#x2019;s nondiscriminatory statute is directed at legitimate local concerns related to public safety.&#x201d;   Bolton&#x2019;s ruling came only in the federal government&#x2019;s suit and did not address directly the suits filed by civil rights groups, unions, police officers and other individuals. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Among House Democrats in Rust Belt, a sense of abandonment over energy bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7170</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7170</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Paul Kane and Shailagh MurrayWhen Democratic Rep. The GOP is using the climate change vote to accuse Skelton, now in his 34th year in Congress, of drifting from his moderate Midwestern roots.&#34;I vote for Ike Skelton. Everybody votes for Ike Skelton,&#34; said Kay Hoflander, chairman of the Lafayette County Republican Party.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Paul Kane and Shailagh MurrayWhen Democratic Rep. John Boccieri went home to Ohio early this year to talk with voters in his Canton-based district, he figured he would have to do battle with at least some constituents over his support for health-care reform. And the economic stimulus. And the auto company bailouts.But at a meeting with business leaders, he had to come up with fast answers on something completely different: Why, the businessmen wanted to know, had Boccieri voted for a bill last summer to cap carbon emissions, which they feared would drive up their energy bills in the middle of a recession?Boccieri said he was tired of wars based on &#34;petrol dictators and big oil.&#34;&#34;If I can take a tough vote today, I'm going to take that vote,&#34; said the freshman lawmaker, an Air Force reservist who flew C-130s over Iraq for more than a year.But 13 months after that tough vote, Boccieri and dozens of other House Democrats along the Rust Belt are not at all happy with the way things have turned out. The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had assured reluctant members that the Senate would take up the measure. Although Senate passage wasn't a sure thing, House Democrats hoped to go back home to voters with a great story to tell -- about reducing dependence on foreign oil, slowing climate change and creating jobs.That didn't happen. Senate leaders, sensing political danger, repeatedly put off energy legislation, and the White House didn't lean on them very hard to make it a priority. In the aftermath of the gulf oil spill, the Senate is set to take up a stripped-down bill next week, but the controversial carbon-emissions cap is conspicuously missing.This has left some House Democrats feeling badly served by their leaders. Although lawmakers are reluctant to say so publicly, their aides and campaign advisers privately complain that the speaker and the president left Democrats exposed on an unpopular issue that has little hope of being signed into law.Some Democrats liken the situation to that of the 1993 &#34;Btu&#34; tax. The House passed the tax, but the Senate never took it up. Many House Democrats felt hung out on a limb in the 1994 elections, when Republicans reclaimed control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.House leaders stand behind the 2009 vote. Asked whether it was a mistake in light of the Senate's inaction, Pelosi joked that she would answer a different question. &#34;We staked out a bold position,&#34; she said, &#34;one that was a consensus within our caucus, one that received some Republican votes. We are very proud of it.&#34;Throughout the winter and spring, as the health-care debate dominated Washington's attention, lawmakers faced less scrutiny on climate change and some thought the controversy might recede. But Republicans are reviving it as a campaign issue.&#34;That bill would just crucify Missouri. Voting for it, it just didn't make sense,&#34; said state Sen. Bill Stouffer, who is one of two well-financed Republican primary candidates hoping to unseat Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton in the fall. The GOP is using the climate change vote to accuse Skelton, now in his 34th year in Congress, of drifting from his moderate Midwestern roots.&#34;I vote for Ike Skelton. Everybody votes for Ike Skelton,&#34; said Kay Hoflander, chairman of the Lafayette County Republican Party. But when Skelton voted for the climate bill, &#34;he quit representing his district,&#34; Hoflander said. &#34;People now are saying, 'Ike used to be one of us.' &#34;Skelton, 78, rejects that accusation. He said his initial motivation for supporting the bill was to &#34;control the EPA.&#34; Armed with a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that gave the Environmental Protection Agency power to oversee carbon emissions, the Obama administration issued Congress an ultimatum: Unless it acted, the EPA would step in and impose tough new regulations. Better to have Congress do the job, Skelton argued, than a government agency that many farmers and manufacturers in Missouri view with scorn.Some Democrats are defending themselves on the volatile issue by doubling down and promoting their votes as forward-looking, and others are staking out more business-friendly ground with other energy proposals. To blunt some of the criticism, Skelton joined Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) in sponsoring a bill that would ban the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases -- a measure that Boccieri and other Midwestern Democrats support.Nowhere does the issue cut as sharply as along the I-70 corridor, the nearly 800-mile stretch from Pittsburgh to Kansas City that throughout the 20th century served as the nation's economic engine. The coal-fired smokestacks and steel mills that once symbolized an honest day's work throughout the region find themselves under assault as emitters of environmental poison, creating a difficult political dance for the region's lawmakers.This I-70 region is home to at least 20 contested House races and five open Senate seats, including in Ohio, where this month GOP Senate candidate Rob Portman launched a TV campaign calling climate legislation &#34;a job killer for Ohio.&#34; Republicans are trying to add the bill to a mix of tough votes that could flip enough races in this region to put the House back in GOP control and seriously dent the Democratic edge in the Senate.Of the 15 House Democrats in this corridor who are in contested races, 10 voted for the climate legislation, giving Pelosi the decisive margin in the 219 to 212 victory in June 2009. Many Midwestern Democrats preferred not taking up the issue, at least until after health care was finished. Once Pelosi moved what she calls her &#34;hallmark&#34; issue ahead of health care last year, Obama led a final push to get the necessary votes.Pelosi won over wavering Democrats such as Boccieri and Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio), Baron P. Hill (Ind.) and Zack Space (Ohio) -- each of whom faces a difficult reelection -- after intense negotiations designed to soften the blow of the initial proposal. The House bill would place new production costs on power plants, factories and oil refineries, requiring U.S. emissions to decline 17 percent by 2020. Creating a commodities market, the bill would require polluters to buy &#34;credits&#34; to cover their emissions; Midwestern farmers, among others, could sell &#34;offsets&#34; for pollutants they didn't emit.But lofty talk about the securing the future of the planet is not likely to win over many voters who have lost their jobs.In Boccieri's northeastern Ohio district, the manufacturing decline has been sharp and painful. Ten years ago, there were 45,000 manufacturing jobs in the Canton-Massillon region. By spring, the number had been cut nearly in half, to 24,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Boccieri said he knows his constituents are focused on the present. &#34;All the average voter wants to know is, 'When my refrigerator is on, are my rates going to be lower or higher?' &#34;]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Wonkbook: EPA limits face veto; deficit tops $1.4 trillion; deportations surge</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7161</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7161</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Contrary to official projections, the budget gap will not begin to narrow much in 2011, because of an unexpectedly big drop in tax receipts. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama has followed suit, and our national comprehension of climate change continues to stagnate.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ezra KleinFollowing the apparent death of cap and trade, a White House aide says that President Barack Obama will veto any bill limiting the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That means that for now, the response to climate change will be located in the executive branch, where 60 votes aren't needed to act, but where action comes in the form of blunt regulations rather than a price on carbon.Meanwhile, revised estimates show the budget deficit topping $1.4 trillion this year. The reason? The economy is still bad, and when the economy is bad, tax revenues fall. Which is why it's very difficult to see the deficit substantially shrinking until the economy has recovered, or at least is doing a faster job of recovering. This year's deficit was projected to be lower because the Obama administration -- and many others -- thought the recovery would have taken more of a hold by now.Oh, and trivia question: Which administration deported more illegal immigrants? The Obama administration or the Bush administration? Answer below.It's Monday, bloody Monday. Welcome to Wonkbook.Top StoriesThe White House will likely veto a bill stripping the the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases, reports Darren Samuelsohn: &#34;EPA already has promulgated climate rules for motor vehicles, the result of closed-door negotiations with the auto industry, environmentalists and California officials. Next up are rules due early next year dealing with coal-fired power plants. A number of other petitions from states and environmentalists are on EPA&#8217;s doorstep that press for climate-focused limits on petroleum refiners and other major industrial sources.&#34;Obama has pushed deportations to record highs since taking office, reports Peter Slevin: &#34;The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office.&#34;Want to get Wonkbook in your e-mail inbox or mobile device every morning? Subscribe!Lower than expected tax revenues put the budget deficit over $1.4 trillion in 2010 and 2011, reports Lori Montgomery: &#34;The latest forecast from the White House budget office shows the deficit rising to $1.47 trillion this year, forcing the government to borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends. Contrary to official projections, the budget gap will not begin to narrow much in 2011, because of an unexpectedly big drop in tax receipts. White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a conference call with reporters that Obama is still on track to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.&#34;Fuzz-pop interlude: The Fresh and Onlys play &#34;Peacock and Wing&#34;.Still to come: Geithner defends the principle behind Fannie and Freddie; BP CEO Tony Hayward is set to resign; Arizona's immigration law is about to take effect; a robot learns to flip pancakes; and the blame game over cap-and-trade.Economy/FinRegTreasury Secretary Tim Geithner defended the idea of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac-style housing guarantees Sunday, report Nick Timiraos and Damian Paletta: Mr. Geithner promised the administration would &#34;bring fundamental change&#34; and said it wouldn't &#34;preserve Fannie and Freddie in anything like their current form&#34; during a Sunday appearance on NBC's &#34;Meet the Press.&#34; But, he added, &#34;there's going to be a good case for taking a look at preserving or putting in place a carefully designed guarantee so, again, homeowners have the ability to borrow to finance a home even in a very difficult recession.&#34;A new study suggests European labor laws hurt profits relative to the US: http://bit.ly/czqYMUEconomics hasn't caught up to the realities of deflation, reports Jon Hilsenrath: &#34;Economists don't have good answers. 'We don't know how deflation works,' says Adam Posen, a member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee who has been studying Japan since 1997. 'We don't have a way of rationalizing steady, several-year flat deflation,' he says. This is a pressing issue for the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks. Ireland is already experiencing deflation. Spain has flirted with it. The Fed's preferred inflation gauge was up 1.3% in June from a year earlier, below its informal target of 1.5% to 2%. Some officials worry prices could go negative if the recovery falters.&#34;Bailouts have resulted in a dramatic gap in pay between new and old workers at auto plants: http://bit.ly/aWdksPSenate Democrats will be as happy to run on a partial Bush tax cuts extension as to pass it, reports John McKinnon: &#34;'The Senate will move first, and it will be a test to see whether Republicans filibuster' to block the bill in a bid to also win tax cuts for higher earners, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the House Democrats' re-election effort. 'If you can't get it out of the Senate, then you take it to the election,&#34; Mr. Van Hollen said in a recent interview. 'You say to the American people that Republicans want to continue to hold middle-class tax relief hostage for an extension of tax breaks for [the well-to-do]. That will be the debate.'&#34;Tim Geithner has become the administration spokesperson on tax cut extension: http://bit.ly/ciUHZlA bill that cleared the Senate would provide $30 billion for small businesses, reports Naftali Bendavid: &#34;The program would authorize the Treasury Department to lend money to banks with less than $10 billion in assets at 5% interest. That interest rate would go down to 1% if a bank significantly increased its loans to small firms...In addition to the lending program, it would allow certain small businesses to apply tax credits to the previous five years, instead of the current one year, and let investors avoid capital gains taxes on certain small business stocks. The legislation also would increase the limits on a variety of Small Business Administration loans.&#34;Robert Samuelson wonders why corporate profits have rebounded so much quicker than jobs: &#34;The most obvious explanation is that the relationship between labor and capital (to borrow Marxist vocabulary) has changed. Capital has gotten stronger; labor has weakened. Economist Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern University argues that the &#34;shift of executive compensation towards much greater use of stock options&#34; has made corporate managers more zealous cost-cutters in recessions and more reluctant hirers early in recoveries. Lowering the head count is the quickest way to restore profits and, from there, a company's stock price.&#34;A Fed insider in charge of consumer protection could be a disaster, writes Mike Konczal: http://bit.ly/cVDEweRobotics interlude: A robotic arm learns to flip pancakes.EnergyPaul Krugman blames greed and cowardice for the climate bill's fate: &#34;There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn&#8217;t -- and it&#8217;s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity&#8217;s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.&#34;Ross Douthat laments the conservative movement's role in denying climate change: http://nyti.ms/cMhkXVAn unwillingness of advocates to talk about climate change helped kill cap and trade, writes Lee Wasserman: &#34;The urge to avoid the topic of climate change is not new. While Bill Clinton and Al Gore have done noble work on climate since leaving office, when they had the presidential megaphone they did little to educate the public about the wolf at our door. President Obama has followed suit, and our national comprehension of climate change continues to stagnate. Virtually the only public officials working to shape opinion on this over the past two years have been those committed to misrepresenting the science.&#34;BP CEO Tony Hayward will resign, reports Steven Mufson: &#34;Hayward reshuffled the middle management ranks. And he vowed to focus &#34;like a laser beam&#34; on safety, a phrase that members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee threw in his face during a June 17 hearing. Yet interviews with consultants and with former and current BP employees suggest that Hayward failed. The firm stressed, often to a comic extent, personal safety while not paying enough attention to safe processes.&#34;A stimulus &#34;smart grid&#34; project is stalling, reports Melanie Trottman: &#34;The government's Smart Grid program is supposed to create tens of thousands of jobs nationwide as the projects move forward. So far, only $107.5 million of the $3.4 billion has been spent, as measured by the Energy Department's reimbursements to recipients for their work. An Energy Department spokeswoman said the agency expected to see big increases in spending over the summer and into the fall. More than half of the 100 groups awarded grants have either cleared regulatory hurdles or didn't require approval from a public utility commission, she said.&#34;An absence of public chargers is causing problems for electric car manufacturers: http://bit.ly/bHteWnThe fate of marsh grasses will determine how fast the Gulf recovers from the BP spill, reports David Fahrenthold: &#34;They are cordgrass and wiregrass, common species that wave in the winds in south Louisiana's coastal marshes. Except, in some places, they aren't waving anymore: Where oil has sloshed into the marshes, their stalks are matted and gooey and on their way to death. What happens next -- whether these two grasses rebound or vanish -- will be a very important piece of the gulf's larger environmental story. &#34;Toy nostalgia interlude: The latest Nerf guns are fully automatic, have replaceable magazines, and come with tripods.Domestic PolicyThe Arizona immigration law takes effect Thursday and is already having an impact, reports Miriam Jordan: &#34;Thousands of illegal-immigrant families have left for other states. Boarded-up houses, shuttered stores and vacated used-car lots are ubiquitous in Hispanic enclaves. St. Margaret's has lost about 20% of its parishioners in recent months. At Park Village Apartments in Mesa, 30 of 120 units have been vacated since the law passed in late April.&#34;The DC school district is firing hundreds of teachers over poor test scores, reports Bill Turque: &#34;The dismissals also represent the second game-changing development this year in Rhee's efforts to assert more control over how D.C. teachers are managed, compensated and removed from their jobs. They also place the school system at the head of a national movement -- fostered in part by the Obama administration's $4.3 billion 'Race to the Top' grant competition -- to more rigorously assess teachers' effectiveness.&#34;The Roberts Court is the most conservative in decades: http://nyti.ms/b5Rm41Health care reform is reversing the direction of transfers between young and old, reports Janet Adamy: &#34;Since the creation of Social Security and Medicare, younger workers have funded programs for the elderly. It's a compact in which workers paid for retirees with the understanding that they'd be looked after by the generation behind them. The health overhaul diverges by tapping a program for the elderly to help provide insurance to 32 million Americans of younger generations. Nearly half the funding for the law is supposed to come from paying lower fees to hospitals, insurers and other health-care providers that participate in Medicare, the federal insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, as well as younger disabled people.&#34;The Department of Education has issued new for-profit college regulations: http://bit.ly/8XwkFhGovernment agencies should be placed around the country, not in DC, argues Alec MacGillis: &#34;With Washington burgeoning in a time of general economic gloom, why not address the imbalance by dispersing the government more broadly? Such a move would spread more evenly the benefits of federal employment (and its contractor hangers-on). It would make the federal bureaucracy more attuned to regional issues. And it just might help dissipate some of the anti-Washington venom that's coursing through the country.&#34;Harry Reid reiterated his support for filibuster reform: http://bit.ly/db9nTWClosing credits: Wonkbook compiled with the help of Dylan Matthews and Mike Shepard. Photo credit: Pete Souza/White House]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Advocates for Cuba trade</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7140</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Houston Chronicle</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Houston Chronicle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7140</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[...-- Waller County rancher Tom Paben has never sold beef to Cuba, largely because of a half-century-old trade and travel embargo.  But Paben is optimistic he will, now that Congress is considering a bill that would allow U.S. tourists to travel to the island nation and would lift restrictions on how Cubans can pay for American agricultural goods.  "If Cuba opened up to tourists, they would use higher cuts of chicken and beef," said Paben, a fifth-generation rancher and farmer. "Our...]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jenalia Moreno Jul. 24, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- Waller County rancher Tom Paben has never sold beef to Cuba, largely because of a half-century-old trade and travel embargo.  But Paben is optimistic he will, now that Congress is considering a bill that would allow U.S. tourists to travel to the island nation and would lift restrictions on how Cubans can pay for American agricultural goods.  "If Cuba opened up to tourists, they would use higher cuts of chicken and beef," said Paben, a fifth-generation rancher and farmer. "Our country has a rare opportunity over the course of the next few days to begin the process of undoing a complete failure in U.S. foreign policy."  The embargo, a product of the Cold War, was enacted in 1962, a few years after Fidel Castro led the revolution that established a communist government in Cuba.  A bill allowing Americans to travel to Cuba and allowing Cuba to pay U.S. companies directly for goods was approved recently by the House Agriculture Committee and faces the Foreign Affairs Committee before it goes before the full House.  On Friday, farmers and business leaders with the Texas Farm Bureau urged Congress to pass the bill.  "This is a step forward in free trade with Cuba," Jeff Moseley, Greater Houston Partnership CEO and president, said during a downtown news conference. In 2006, the partnership passed a resolution supporting trade with Cuba.  A decade ago, the U.S. began allowing agriculture exports to Cuba but required that all financial transactions pass through a third country.  "This stifles our ability to transact business," said Port of Houston Authority CEO Alec Dreyer.  Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said he's open to loosening some restrictions on Cuba but still has concerns about its labor violations and support of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  "Specifically, I support normal financing for food and medicine sales to Cuba. I've also been willing to consider more liberalized travel rules to facilitate these particular transactions," he recently told a House committee hearing on Cuba.  Last year, U.S. exports to Cuba totaled $528 million. The U.S. could export $365 million more annually if the travel and financial restrictions ended, according to a study by the Center for North American Studies at Texas A&M University.  Texas exported $20.6 million in agricultural goods last year and could increase annual exports by $18.4 million under the looser restrictions, the study said.  Texas farmers have been pushing for Congress to ease restrictions on trade with Cuba for years, but this is the first time legislation has gotten out of a legislative committee, said Stephen Pringle, legislative director for the Texas Farm Bureau.  jenalia.moreno@chron.com Newstex ID: KRTB-0089-47239436 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Democrats drop signature climate bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7144</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Boston Globe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Boston Globe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7144</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[We know we don't have the votes,'' said Reid, of Nevada, blaming Republicans for stonewalling efforts to tackle the comprehensive bill. And in 1970 he began that effort to pass health care reform.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Jul. 23, 2010 (The Boston Globe delivered by Newstex) -- WASHINGTON  -  Senators John F. Kerry and  Harry Reid conceded yesterday that they have no chance of passing a comprehensive climate and energy bill any time soon, saying they would instead push for a limited bill to address problems with offshore oil drilling and to boost energy conservation.``We know where we are. We know we don't have the votes,'' said Reid, of Nevada, blaming Republicans for stonewalling efforts to tackle the comprehensive bill. The Senate majority leader, calling the lack of Republican votes "deeply disappointing,'' spoke at a news conference with Kerry and Carol Browner, White House energy adviser.The stripped-down bill would include provisions that increase the liability costs for oil companies involved in spills such as the BP (NYSE:BP)  disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, expand the use of natural gas in long-haul trucks, increase spending on land and water conservation, and provide rebates to people who buy products that reduce energy usage in their homes.Senate Democrats said they expected to find enough Republican support to pass the legislation before the August recess.For Kerry, the decision to at least  shelve his signature climate legislation is a stinging setback. With  Senators  Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and, initially, Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, the Massachusetts Democrat spent 18 months and thousands of hours in meetings with colleagues, environmentalists, and business leaders to craft and promote the bill. Focusing his efforts on forging a partnership with energy producers instead of punishing them for polluting, Kerry created a bill that would put a price on the carbon emissions, provide clean energy incentives for the coal and oil industries, and offer tax credits to the nuclear industry. The bill's goal was to cut carbon pollution 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.Graham pulled out of the effort in April, saying Democratic leaders were not offering enough support for their bill.``We've always known from day one that to pass comprehensive energy reform you've got to have 60 votes,'' Kerry said yesterday. "As we stand here today we don't have one Republican vote.''The House passed an energy and climate bill a year ago.David Hawkins, director of climate programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council,  called climate change a "real and present danger'' that needs to be addressed.The decision to abandon the proposal in the Senate was another concession to the difficult political environment Democratic leaders face, as many rank-and-file  are wary of casting any vote that could be used in political attacks by Republicans.Even Democrats from energy-producing states were deeply divided on the legislation. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, thought the bill could lead to increased energy costs, while others worried about pushing such a controversial political issue after Democrats had already passed the stimulus and health care bills.But after the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama sought to push the public and Congress to back the comprehensive approach,  saying the accident illustrated the importance of reducing  the nation's dependence on oil. In a speech last month in Pittsburgh, he said, "The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months.''But the president and Kerry  never found the votes, even for a pared measure that would only limit greenhouse gas emissions by electric utilities, not other energy producers.Yesterday, Kerry vowed to continue pushing for a more comprehensive bill. "President Obama called me before this meeting and said point blank that he is committed to working in these next days at a more intensive pace together with Carol Browner and other members of the administration to help bring together the ability to find 60 votes for that comprehensive legislation,'' he said.But Kerry also offered a hint of the challenge: "You know I watched Ted Kennedy over 26 years fight to get tough things passed. And in 1970 he began that effort to pass health care reform. We just got it this year.``This is not going to take that long,'' Kerry said.Material from the Associated Press and the Washington Post was included in this report. Newstex ID: BGL-1035-47213482 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Senators Call for Climate Bill That Makes ‘Polluters Pay’</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7132</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7132</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Despite the call from the 12 senators, there is still doubt the Senate will consider climate and energy legislation before the Senate goes home in August. However, Reid still wants to bring a bill to the floor next week, and Democrats have scheduled a caucus on the matter for today.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[A dozen of the more liberal senators wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Wednesday outlining their goals for energy and climate change legislation that Reid hopes to bring to the floor before the August recess. “The single-most important action we can take to reform our energy policy and make the United States a leader in the global clean energy economy is to make polluters pay for the pollution they emit,” the senators said in their letter.
 
The letter was signed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.).

“In the wake of the disastrous and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it is even more essential that the Senate act quickly to reform our nation’s energy policy to end our dependence on foreign oil, make a significant commitment to clean, renewable energy, and ensure that polluters pay for the cost of these investments by establishing a price on pollution from traditional fossil fuels,” the letter said. 

“A strong bill that includes these priorities will sufficiently drive the necessary investment in clean energy technology to create the well-paid jobs that will revitalize our economy and sustain it for generations to come.”

Despite the call from the 12 senators, there is still doubt the Senate will consider climate and energy legislation before the Senate goes home in August. However, Reid still wants to bring a bill to the floor next week, and Democrats have scheduled a caucus on the matter for today.

Still, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said Wednesday that a vote is unlikely any time soon. “We’re not doing it before we leave in August,” Durbin said.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>FBACT Newswatch: GIPSA, Climate Change, Veterinarians and Roundup Ready Alfalfa</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7119</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7119</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Subcommittee Chair Blasts Proposed GIPSA Rules
Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the chairman of the House Agriculture livestock subcommittee, blasted proposed rules by the Agriculture Department’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) designed to address competition in the livestock and poultry sectors.
At a subcommittee hearing Tuesday, Scott told Edward Avalos, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Subcommittee Chair Blasts Proposed GIPSA Rules
Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the chairman of the House Agriculture livestock subcommittee, blasted proposed rules by the Agriculture Department’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) designed to address competition in the livestock and poultry sectors.
At a subcommittee hearing Tuesday, Scott told Edward Avalos, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, that some of the rules went “well beyond” what Congress intended and USDA is trying to impose regulations that lawmakers had specifically rejected when they wrote the 2008 farm bill. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said he is concerned the rules would make it harder to continue branded marketing arrangements between farmers and processors.
At the hearing, both Democrats and Republicans asked USDA to extend the comment period beyond the current Aug. 23 deadline. The American Farm Bureau Federation supports extending the comment period to provide more time to analyze the economic and legal ramifications of the proposed rules.
AFBF supports portions of the proposed rules and will submit comments. At first glance, the rules address many of AFBF’S concerns with the relationship between livestock and poultry producers and processors. For example, the rules limit the circumstances under which processors can demand capital investments from poultry and swine producers. 


Senate Climate Bill Considered ‘Terminal’
The Capitol Hill newspaper Politico reports today that the Senate climate change and energy bill may be truly terminal now. There is some talk the Senate may consider the bill after the August recess, but even that is in doubt.
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would not commit to what the bill would or would not contain. “We’re going to make a decision in the near future,” Reid said. “We’re really not at a point where I can determine what I think is the best for the caucus and the country at this stage.” 
A Senate Democratic caucus on energy and climate legislation is planned for Thursday. Reid had hoped to have a climate and energy bill ready for floor debate next week, but is having trouble persuading swing-vote Democrats to commit to the bill. 

 
Ag Committee to Consider Vet Investment Act Next Week
 
The House Agriculture Committee will mark up the Veterinary Services Investment Act on July 28. Reps. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) and Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) introduced H.R. 3519 last summer, and the Senate bill (S. 1709) was introduced in September by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and John Thune (R-S.D.). AFBF supports the legislation.  
 
The bills would authorize “such sums as necessary” for a competitive grant program to relieve veterinary shortage situations and support veterinary services. The new grant program will be administered by the National Institute for Food and Agriculture at USDA. 
 
Congressmen ask Vilsack to OK Roundup Ready Alfalfa for Fall 
 
A letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack from 75 members of Congress asks that farmers be allowed to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa in the fall 2010 planting season. 

The June 21 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a nationwide ban on the cultivation of biotech alfalfa, but remanded the case back to the District Court. Depending on the District Court’s decision, USDA can then decide what interim measures can be implemented while the agency completes an environmental impact statement. 

The letter points out that USDA’s draft statement concluded that there is “no significant impact on the human environment due to granting non-regulated status to Roundup Ready alfalfa.” A partial deregulation would allow farmers to plant their inventoried Roundup Ready alfalfa seed this fall while USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service completes its final environmental impact study.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Decision Time for Climate Provisions</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7116</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CQ Politics</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CQ Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7116</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[It’s a make-or-break week for environmental advocates and senators struggling to keep climate change provisions in the mix during a pre-recess energy debate.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is sticking with his plan to start debate on an energy bill July 26, a deadline that means he must quickly produce legislation.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s a make-or-break week for environmental advocates and senators struggling to keep climate change provisions in the mix during a pre-recess energy debate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is sticking with his plan to start debate on an energy bill July 26, a deadline that means he must quickly produce legislation — and that increases pressure on supporters of adding carbon dioxide controls to the measure.

“At this point in the calendar, time is a big constraint on action,” said Daniel J. Weiss, a climate expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, who last week listed provisions from existing energy and climate bills that could be compiled into one measure.

Reid, D-Nev., said July 13 that the bill would address the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, “clean” energy and job creation and will include a tax title and language on pollution from power plants. That last provision is widely seen as a limit on greenhouse gases, although Reid carefully avoided using the word “cap” or other politically charged nomenclature that Republicans have tagged as “energy taxes.”

The effort got a boost when all 12 freshman Democratic senators called for the inclusion of carbon pricing in the energy bill.

While Reid’s words and the freshmen’s support have helped revive efforts to add climate provisions to the bill, it remains an uphill fight.

John Kerry , D-Mass., and Joseph I. Lieberman , I-Conn., spent months negotiating with industry and environmentalists on an economy-wide climate bill, only to scale back their efforts in a bid to win 60 votes. They are now trying to broker an agreement between electric utilities and major environmental groups on a cap covering emissions from power plants.

Those talks have stumbled over the familiar dispute about the distribution of emission allowances, as well as new demands by utilities for exemptions from EPA regulations on traditional pollutants, including lead, mercury and ozone, in exchange for agreeing to carbon dioxide limits, lobbyists said. In a July 14 letter to senators, major health and environmental groups called such exemptions “simply unacceptable” and a threat to millions of lives.

Further complicating matters, some manufacturing groups — American Chemistry Council and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association — have come out in opposition to the idea of a utilities-only cap.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Estate tax to return in 2011, and it could hurt ordinary folks</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7113</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>USA Today</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USA Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7113</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[In death, he beat the IRS.Steinbrenner's death on July 13 occurred six months after the federal estate tax expired. In addition, individuals can give away an annual amount without reducing their exemption for gift or estate taxes. But even if Congress agrees on an estate tax fix, it's unlikely lawmakers will be able to make it retroactive, Behrendt says.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sandra BlockIn life, George Steinbrenner beat the Red Sox. In death, he beat the IRS.Steinbrenner's death on July 13 occurred six months after the federal estate tax expired. Forbes magazine estimates the Yankees owner's net worth was $1.15 billion, so the timing of Steinbrenner's death could save his heirs up to $500 million in federal estate taxes.But future heirs may not be so lucky. The federal estate tax is scheduled to return with a vengeance on Jan. 1, 2011, imposing a levy of up to 55% on estates valued at more than $1 million. And the same congressional paralysis that allowed the tax to expire in 2010 could thwart efforts to pare it back, estate planning attorneys say.A $1 million exemption would affect a lot of families that are well out of Steinbrenner's league. &#34;You take a home, an IRA or 401(k) retirement account, some other savings and you get to $1 million pretty easily,&#34; says Richard Behrendt, senior estate planner for Robert W. Baird and a former IRS attorney.ESCAPING ESTATE TAX: Famous folk who have died this yearFamilies who live in areas with high property values are particularly vulnerable, says Clint Stretch, tax principal for Deloitte Tax who lives outside Washington, D.C. &#34;People in my neighborhood bought a house for $32,000 in the '60s, and now it's worth $1 million,&#34; he says. &#34;If they've got anything else, they would be paying an estate tax.&#34;And for truly wealthy families, estate taxes could influence life-or-death decisions. But more on that later.Congressional inactionThe roots of the estate tax disarray date back to 2001, when Congress voted to gradually raise the estate tax exemption while cutting income tax rates. The phase-out ended in repeal of the tax in 2010. But like the Bush administration's income tax cuts, the reduction in the estate tax is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.Right up until the end of 2009, most estate tax attorneys expected Congress to step in and reinstate the tax. That didn't happen &#8212; raising doubts about whether Congress can agree on a fix that will prevent a more punitive tax from rising from the grave in 2011.&#34;Nine years ago I would have told you there was no chance we would have a year of repeal and no chance we would go back to the $1 million exemption,&#34; says Beth Kaufman, a partner with Caplin &#38; Drysdale in Washington, D.C., and former associate tax legislative counsel for Treasury's Office of Tax Policy. &#34;Now that we've gotten to the year of repeal, it's hard to say that something is impossible any more.&#34;Historically, wealthy individuals have used a variety of strategies to mitigate estate taxes, including giving away a large portion of their wealth while they're still alive. Individuals can give their children, relatives and others up to $1 million during their lifetimes without incurring federal gift taxes, Kaufman says. In addition, individuals can give away an annual amount without reducing their exemption for gift or estate taxes. In 2010, the annual gift tax exclusion is $13,000 per recipient and individuals can give away that amount to as many people as they want. Many wealthy families also reduce the size of their taxable estates by giving money and other assets to charity.But those strategies aren't practical for families who have most of their wealth tied up in their primary residences and retirement savings, Kaufman says. &#34;You're not going to give away your house, because you're living in it,&#34; she says. Taking withdrawals from retirement plans will trigger income taxes, plus a 10% penalty if the plan owner is under 59&#189;.Proposed fixesThe Obama administration has proposed returning the estate tax to its 2009 level, with a $3.5 million exemption and a 45% rate on assets that exceed that amount. The House approved the administration's proposal last year, but Republican opponents blocked action in the Senate.Last week Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., re-introduced legislation that would exempt up to $5 million from estate taxes and impose a 35% tax rate on assets that exceed that amount.&#34;In just six short months, American taxpayers will face the largest tax hike in history unless Congress acts,&#34; Lincoln said in a statement. &#34;It is estimated that more than a half-million American families will pay the estate tax over the next decade, and the lack of congressional action creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty for these families, small-business owners and farmers.&#34;But political partisanship has made compromise increasingly difficult, says Melissa Montgomery-Fitzsimmons, director of wealth planning for First Western Trust Bank in Denver. &#34;Given the fact that we're in an election year, the most likely thing to happen is that the laws will not change, and we will go back to $1 million of exemption and a 55% rate,&#34; she says.Plus, reinstating the estate tax with a lower exemption would provide lawmakers with a back-door way to raise revenue, says Jason Smolen, an estate tax attorney at SmolenPlevy of Vienna, Va. &#34;If you could do nothing and get more money, it's better than voting to raise taxes to get more money,&#34; he says.Stretch is more optimistic that Congress will resolve the issue before the end of the year. He believes an estate tax with a higher threshold than $1 million &#8212; possibly somewhere between the one in the House-passed bill and the one proposed by Kyl and Lincoln &#8212; will be included in legislation preventing the middle-class tax cuts from expiring.That legislation has real urgency, because without it, millions of middle-class Americans will see their taxes go up on Jan. 1, Stretch says. The higher taxes &#34;would come out of people's paychecks almost immediately,&#34; he says. &#34;If there's any sanity left in our political system, it will take care of middle-class tax cuts before January and at that moment in time they'll take care of estate tax.&#34;Stretch says there's a good chance the House will extend the middle-class tax cuts and address the estate tax before the midterm elections, possibly as early as this month. But the Senate probably won't take up the issue until after the elections, he says.Retroactive tax unlikelyIn the meantime, the list of wealthy estates that will escape federal estate taxes will no doubt continue to grow. In addition to Steinbrenner, families of real estate magnate Walter Shorenstein, Texas pipeline tycoon Dan Duncan and Taco Bell founder Glen Bell will not have to worry about federal estate taxes. J.D. Salinger's heirs will also get a tax break, although establishing the value of the reclusive author's estate could take years.&#34;If there's ever a good time to die, 2010 is certainly it for the wealthy individual,&#34; Kaufman says.Shortly after the estate tax expired, there was widespread speculation that Congress would reinstate it and make the tax retroactive to the beginning of 2010. But even if Congress agrees on an estate tax fix, it's unlikely lawmakers will be able to make it retroactive, Behrendt says. Families of billionaires who have died this year have the money and wherewithal to fight the tax all the way to the Supreme Court, he says.&#34;At some point, it becomes impractical to bring it (estate tax) back,&#34; Behrendt says. &#34;George Steinbrenner's death in mid-July really underscores that reality.&#34;Life-or-death tax implicationsAs repeal of the estate tax loomed at the end of 2009, wealthy families had an incentive to keep ailing parents or grandparents alive until Jan. 1. This year, in what sounds like an episode of Law &#38; Order, heirs stand to benefit if wealthy benefactors die before midnight on Dec. 31. While outright homicide seems unlikely, estate-planning attorneys say they can envision situations in which the prospect of onerous estate taxes influences family members' decision to discontinue a relative's life support.It could also cause some wealthy people with terminal illnesses to hasten their own demise, Behrendt says. &#34;The fact is that our tax laws are influencing people's decision to live or die.&#34;Yahoo! Buzz Mixx]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Lincoln, Kyl Introduce Estate Tax Reform Amendment</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7095</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:59:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7095</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced late Tuesday an amendment to permanently reform the federal estate tax.
 
The proposal would require the Senate Finance Committee to amend H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending bill, to permanently set the estate tax rate at 35 percent, with a $5 million exemption amount phased in [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced late Tuesday an amendment to permanently reform the federal estate tax.
 
The proposal would require the Senate Finance Committee to amend H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending bill, to permanently set the estate tax rate at 35 percent, with a $5 million exemption amount phased in over 10 years and indexed for inflation. It would also provide a “stepped up basis” for inherited assets.
 
“Uncertainty in the estate tax law has caused incredible difficulties for these individuals, which is why I have fought for a quick resolution to the issue that is both permanent and fair. One way to improve upon an already strong legislative initiative that includes tax incentives and a number of other benefits for small businesses is to ensure that we reach a permanent solution on the estate tax to provide small business owners and famers with the certainty they need,” Lincoln said.
 
The American Farm Bureau Federation strongly backs the Lincoln-Kyl amendment and is urging the Senate to pass it. Permanent estate tax reform is a Farm Bureau priority.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>2010: The year of the independent?</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7087</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7087</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[they are on the verge of upending the political order in their home states, and the election of just one of them could send tremors across the landscape.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a year marked by deep antipathy toward the political establishment, credible third-party candidates are poised to determine the outcome — and perhaps even win — statewide office in a handful of high-profile races.

They are concentrated in New England, where independent and third-party candidates have a recent history of gaining traction, though in Florida — home to one of the nation’s marquee 2010 Senate campaigns — Gov. Charlie Crist has an opportunity to join the Senate’s two independents.

The independents — including former Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill and attorney and businessman Eliot Cutler in Maine — haven’t exactly come up through the ranks of third-party politics. Nor are they political neophytes. By and large, they are former partisans who are well-versed in politics and policy.

Still, they are on the verge of upending the political order in their home states, and the election of just one of them could send tremors across the landscape.

“The landscape for independents has never looked so fertile,” said political consultant Julian Mulvey, who works with Chafee, Cahill and Cutler, who are running for governor of their respective states.

A USA Today poll conducted last month found that 60 percent of Americans were either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to vote for an independent candidate this fall.

This leaves room for what Mulvey calls the “rebellion of the responsible center” — a chance for candidates to fill the ideological space vacated by major-party politicians who have moved to the right or the left to attract primary voters.

Cutler told POLITICO that he plans to capitalize on that in his campaign in Maine.

“The [Democrats and Republicans] nominated very extreme candidates, at the far end of both parties,” he said of Democratic nominee Libby Mitchell and GOP standard-bearer Paul LePage. “What that means for a candidate like me ... it’s really liberating, because I say what I think, I don’t sugarcoat anything, and I don’t have to balance what one group wants against what another group wants.”

Even amid record levels of voter frustration with the major political parties, third-party candidates have an uphill climb. An independent hasn’t been elected governor of a state since 1998, when two, Minnesota’s Jesse Ventura and Maine’s Angus King, won. In the Senate, there are just two independents: Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman.

But across the Northeast this year, several strong candidates have emerged as pivotal players.

In Massachusetts, Cahill, a former Democrat, polled ahead of his GOP opponent for a time, leading to a sustained Republican ad blitz that knocked him down a notch. He now ranks a distant third, but, he told POLITICO, if his success is measured by how much the other candidates are attacking him, “it’s going great. ... Experts are all saying I can’t win, but at the same time they’re spending a lot of time attacking me.”

The high proportion of independent voters in New England — in Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, they outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans — makes it fertile ground for independent candidates.

Generally, the biggest challenge for independent candidates is proving to voters that they’re credible enough to win, said former Maine Gov. Angus King, an independent elected in 1994 to the first of two terms.

“The challenge in most states is to get the voters to not feel that it’s a wasted vote, that there’s a real chance that the independent can win,” he said. “Once you can cross that obstacle of credibility, then it’s wide open.”

The current class of independents already appears to have met that threshold. Crist, Cahill and Chafee are veteran elected officials. Cutler is a former Capitol Hill staffer and federal official. Their political backgrounds are rooted in party politics, a model that echoes the success of Lieberman’s 2006 independent bid.

Lieberman, who served three terms as a Democrat, won reelection as an independent that year after losing the Democratic primary.

“People look at what Joe Lieberman did in 2006 and say, ‘Well, I could do that too,’” said independent political consultant Bill Hillsman, a former adviser to Ventura who called Lieberman’s victory “probably the most successful example of a change of stripes” in recent political history.

Now, some of this year’s independent candidates feel that “the only way they can get into office is to put an ‘I’ next to their name,” said GOP consultant Alicia Preston, who works with Republican candidates in the Northeast.

For them, the independent party label provides the obvious benefit of having “no strings attached,” said Tim Penny, a former Democratic congressman who ran for governor of Minnesota as an independent in 2002.

The real challenge for these candidates is to convince voters they’re not assuming the mantle of “independent” for purely political motives.

“There’s a difference between an independent who’s a true outsider and one who’s running [as an independent] because he can’t get through a primary in his party,” Hillsman said. “You can’t say, ‘I’m an outsider’ when you’ve been the governor.”

For Chafee, who left the GOP in 2006, the “outsider” tag isn’t a heavy lift. He was highly critical of the Iraq war and declared his support for Barack Obama in 2008, which his current campaign manager, John Pagliarini, says voters see as a sign of a “conscientious individual.”

Hillsman said Chafee can run on the idea that he no longer fits into the GOP ideology. “If I’m Lincoln Chafee, even though I’ve been elected for a long time as a Republican, I can make a fairly credible argument ... ‘I didn’t change; my party changed,’” he said.

But for Crist and Cahill, who are still in office and only recently left their respective political parties, it’s a “very difficult calculus,” he added.

In Crist’s case, Hillsman said, the Florida governor will have to strike a delicate balance in order to gain Democratic support while not alienating Republicans and independents who have backed him even after he left the GOP.

For an independent bid to be successful, Hillsman said, the candidate must capture the majority of undeclared or independent voters, as well as pulling in some voters from each side of the political spectrum — a tall order.

“A lot depends on the mood going into the final few weeks,” Penny said. “If voters right now seem in a mood to ‘throw the rascals out,’ that could maintain and even intensify by November.”]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Launches Showcase on &#8216;Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food&#8217; Website</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7084</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>USDA Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USDA Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7084</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Online Resource will Expand National Dialogue About Economic Opportunity for Producers

WASHINGTON, July 14, 2010 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today launched a new feature on the &#8216;Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food&#8217; website to highlight local and regional food systems and the multitude of connections being made between farmers and consumers. The new online resource [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Online Resource will Expand National Dialogue About Economic Opportunity for Producers
  	

WASHINGTON, July 14, 2010 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today launched a new feature on the 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' website to highlight local and regional food systems and the multitude of connections being made between farmers and consumers. The new online resource advances a national conversation about food and agriculture and highlights the importance of local and regional food systems – one of the fastest growing segments of agriculture – to American agriculture, the economy, and rural communities.

"By developing our local and regional food systems, we can spur job growth in our rural communities and ultimately strengthen American agriculture," said Secretary Vilsack. "This showcase will serve as a hub of ideas, local success stories, and USDA resources that showcase and strengthen the link between local production and local consumption that benefits producers of all sizes."

The 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' Ideas and Stories webpage - http://kyf.blogs.usda.gov – will provide real-world examples of the outpouring of dedication, entrepreneurship and support for agriculture that are taking place every day across the country. The website also serves as a clearinghouse for USDA resources aimed at linking local producers with consumers and promoting a national conversation about food and agriculture.

USDA's "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative seeks to create new economic opportunities, to promote local and regional food systems that help keep wealth in rural communities, and to encourage a national conversation about what we eat and where it comes from in order to benefit producers of all sizes. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Energy bill to debut as shadow of itself</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7077</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>USA Today</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USA Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7077</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[They voted to put a price on carbon pollution, dubbed a &#34;national energy tax&#34; by Sen. The National Republican Congressional Committee is targeting more than 50 Democrats over the vote, such as Reps.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Richard WolfWASHINGTON  President Obama's attempt to use the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to help propel comprehensive energy legislation has failed, but the Senate plans to unveil a scaled-back measure as early as next week.A month ago, Obama used his first Oval Office address to the nation to press for congressional action on energy and climate change legislation &#8212; the only major piece of his domestic agenda that has languished in Congress.Yet on Tuesday, the topic didn't even come up when the president met with the Senate's Democratic leaders at the White House to discuss upcoming legislation. Instead, the meeting focused on financial regulation, aid for the unemployed and increasing loans to small businesses.MID-TERMS: GOP Hispanic candidates go against trendThe energy bill likely to emerge in the Senate won't look like the one Obama has sought since taking office. He wants to charge utilities and other companies for a portion of their greenhouse gas emissions as a way to reduce pollution and pay for clean energy alternatives.&#34;I'm not sure the votes are there to do that in this Congress,&#34; says Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. &#34;You need to do whatever you're able to do when you're able to do it.&#34;Revising the billInstead, the Senate bill is likely to include renewable energy standards and tax credits, tougher fuel-efficiency requirements, incentives for electric vehicles and new oil drilling regulations. The House of Representatives passed a more comprehensive bill, including a price on carbon pollution, last year.White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that when the Senate takes up the bill, &#34;I expect that the president will be active in that debate.&#34;Since April's Gulf oil spill highlighted the nation's dependence on foreign oil and the dangers of domestic exploration, Obama has sought a deal on taxing carbon pollution &#8212; something environmentalists say is essential but most industry officials oppose.Obama told a bipartisan group of senators involved in energy policy late last month to aim high &#8212; but not so high that they don't hit something, according to Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, one of the participants.The problem for Obama: victories on economic stimulus, financial regulation, health care and education have eaten up much of his mandate, leaving him less able to dictate terms. &#34;There's only so much political capital to go around,&#34; says Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute. &#34;Every major battle consumes a certain amount.&#34;&#34;There's a little bit of legislative fatigue with expansive, huge bills,&#34; says Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Obama was able to do two things on energy last year: The $862 billion economic stimulus law included about $80 billion for renewable energy programs, and fuel-efficiency standards were raised for new cars and trucks.At the same time, Obama has signaled he's willing to oppose environmentalists by promoting loan guarantees for nuclear plants, more offshore oil drilling and clean coal technology.&#34;The White House appears to be navigating the politics of climate and energy through the theory of unilateral disarmament,&#34; says Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth. &#34;Who are they negotiating with?&#34;Navigating the oppositionWhite House senior adviser David Axelrod says the goal is to get a bill through a Senate where nearly all Republicans and some Democrats from manufacturing states &#8212; such as Michigan's Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow and Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Arlen Specter&#8212; oppose raising costs on industry. &#34;We will take the steps that are possible and achievable,&#34; Axelrod says. &#34;We're not going to make the perfect be the enemy of the good, but we want to make progress.&#34;Some propelling factors: The Deepwater Horizon oil spill presented a crisis in need of a solution. &#34;The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,&#34; Obama said in the June 15 Oval Office speech. He pledged to foreign leaders at last December's climate change summit in Copenhagen that the U.S. would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels, and 83% by 2050. &#34;The White House has a real interest in getting this done for international reasons as well as for domestic ones,&#34; says Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress. Last year's 219-212 House vote left moderate Democrats hanging. They voted to put a price on carbon pollution, dubbed a &#34;national energy tax&#34; by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. The Senate hasn't acted. The National Republican Congressional Committee is targeting more than 50 Democrats over the vote, such as Reps. Baron Hill of Indiana, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania and Zack Space of Ohio. This would be Obama's best chance to enact anything close to comprehensive energy legislation if the midterm elections follow historical patterns and hand the GOP major gains in Congress. After President Clinton failed to pass a health care bill in 1994, it took 16 years to get it done.Says Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defense Fund: &#34;If we don't get it done this year, we're not coming back to it for a long, long time.&#34;Yahoo! Buzz Mixx]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Congress returns from recess to even more of the same</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7068</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7068</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[An emergency war funding bill, loaded up with unrelated spending, faces a White House veto threat. Sensing opportunity in the public's outrage over the BP oil spill, Democrats are considering reviving the dormant climate-change debate. Senate Republicans have warned that they will filibuster the House version, which also includes funding for Pell grants and new energy projects, pushing the price tag to $80 billion.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Shailagh MurrayCongress will return this week from the July 4th recess to a pile of unfinished business.Yes, the same might be said of every Congress returning from every recess since lawmakers wore wigs and tights. But this time it could be a big problem, especially for the party in power.When Barack Obama took office and the Democrats took control of Washington, they made ambitious promises about how much they'd get done, with or without Republican help. Now, with relatively few working days left before the November midterm elections (in part because lawmakers granted themselves another long break beginning at the end of July), they might not be able to convince skeptical, frustrated voters that they delivered -- and that they deserve to stay in charge.Bills to extend unemployment benefits and impose new regulations on the financial industry have yet to be resolved. An emergency war funding bill, loaded up with unrelated spending, faces a White House veto threat. The Senate must still approve Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.Add to that coming debates over campaign finance legislation, long-awaited food-safety rules and a contentious defense authorization bill that would end the &#34;don't ask, don't tell&#34; policy on gays in the military.As if that's not enough, the Senate could add to the list. Sensing opportunity in the public's outrage over the BP oil spill, Democrats are considering reviving the dormant climate-change debate. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is assembling legislation that would expand alternative energy incentives and overhaul offshore drilling standards, while requiring BP to assume full liability for damages in the Gulf of Mexico. If Reid decides to do it, the bill could reach the Senate floor as soon as July 19.One way to tell whether a climate bill is more than an election-year compromise: if it seeks to impose significant restrictions on greenhouse gases, along the lines of the &#34;cap and trade&#34; system that was included in the House legislation passed in June 2009.Those caps led to fears of rising energy bills among members of both parties, especially in the coal-dependent Midwest, and would do so again this year, resulting in a bitter fight just weeks before the elections. (Translation: Don't bet on it.) Instead, Senate Democrats are weighing a diluted version that would apply only to power plants; aides said even that could be dropped, depending on the resistance it meets.One obstacle for Democrats should be resolved shortly. West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III (D), is expected this week to appoint a Democratic interim senator to fill the vacancy left by the death of Sen. Robert C. Byrd. That would give Reid the 60th vote he needs to pass the Wall Street legislation and the unemployment benefits extension. But Democrats are not counting on Byrd's replacement as a &#34;yes&#34; vote on climate change, given West Virginia's mining roots.The packed July agenda provides both parties with opportunities to draw contrasts for midterm voters. Only a few GOP senators are expected to support the Wall Street overhaul bill, a package of financial regulatory changes aimed at preventing another economic collapse. Three Republicans supported the final version of the legislation when it cleared the House on June 30. GOP opponents say the bill unduly restricts an industry that thrives on risk and raises prospects of future federal bailouts. Republican leaders hope that the coming month will be much like the last, a clutter of conflict and gridlock. Democrats repeatedly failed to renew popular business tax breaks, extend jobless benefits, reverse a Medicare payment cut to doctors, and provide emergency assistance to cash-strapped states.They even faltered on war funding, one of the few issues with bipartisan support. Late on the night of July 1, just before leaving town for a 10-day break, the House approved $33 billion to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. To overcome liberal resistance, Democratic leaders attached $10 billion in aid to school districts to prevent teacher layoffs -- paid for in part by cuts to Obama's prized &#34;Race to the Top&#34; education reform initiative. The White House responded with a veto threat.The war funding bill's fate is unclear. Senate Republicans have warned that they will filibuster the House version, which also includes funding for Pell grants and new energy projects, pushing the price tag to $80 billion. Although Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the funds for Afghanistan are urgently needed, Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, said a resolution could be weeks away.Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said one bright spot for Democrats could be the energy bill, provided the party drops the emissions cap and keeps the focus on alternative energy development and gulf-related provisions.&#34;It's going to come down to a big decision, a bill that can pass versus a bill that can't pass,&#34; Stewart said. &#34;But if this month looks like last month, they're going to get Kagan and not a whole lot more.&#34;Manley said provisions under consideration include incentives for businesses and homeowners to increase energy efficiency; expanded financing options for clean energy investments, including low-carbon power generation; and improvements to the nation's electricity grid to bring more renewable power to market. The bill also would include measures to expedite the oil cleanup in the gulf and tighten regulations on deepwater drilling.But as many as six Democrats from conservative states could defect, Senate aides said. For Democratic leaders to pass the bill and declare victory in time for the election, they would have to persuade at least that many sympathetic Republicans to defy their leaders and vote with the other side. It's a formidable challenge, to say the least, and one that goes to show why Congress is forever returning to Washington to a pile of unfinished business.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Climate debate unmoved by spill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7071</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7071</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[An oil spill and a burning river in 1969 led to new anti-pollution laws in the 1970s. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) recently proposed a plan to cut oil use by shifting to electric vehicles, building better mass-transit systems and switching to biofuels.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet EilperinFor environmentalists, the BP oil spill may be disproving the maxim that great tragedies produce great change.Traditionally, American environmentalism wins its biggest victories after some important piece of American environment is poisoned, exterminated or set on fire. An oil spill and a burning river in 1969 led to new anti-pollution laws in the 1970s. The Exxon Valdez disaster helped create an Earth Day revival in 1990 and sparked a landmark clean-air law.But this year, the worst oil spill in U.S. history -- and, before that, the worst coal-mining disaster in 40 years -- haven't put the same kind of drive into the debate over climate change and fossil-fuel energy.The Senate is still gridlocked. Opinion polls haven't budged much. Gasoline demand is going up, not down.Environmentalists say they're trying to turn public outrage over oil-smeared pelicans into action against more abstract things, such as oil dependence and climate change. But historians say they're facing a political moment deadened by a bad economy, suspicious politics and lingering doubts after a scandal over climate scientists' e-mails.The difference between now and the awakenings that followed past disasters is as stark as &#34;on versus off,&#34; said Anthony Leiserowitz, a researcher at Yale University who tracks public opinion on climate change.&#34;People's outrage is focused on BP,&#34; Leiserowitz said. The spill &#34;hasn't been automatically connected to some sense that there's something more fundamental wrong with our relationship with the natural world,&#34; he said.The story of 2010 is not that nothing happened after the BP spill, or after the coal-mine explosion that killed 29 in West Virginia on April 5. It's that much of the reaction has focused on preventing accidents -- on tighter scrutiny of rigs and mines -- rather than broader changes in the use of oil and coal.On Capitol Hill, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) recently proposed a plan to cut oil use by shifting to electric vehicles, building better mass-transit systems and switching to biofuels. But the Senate's most important environmental debate, the one over climate legislation, remains stalled.Last year, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would create a &#34;cap and trade&#34; system for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. That bill probably won't fly in the Senate -- too much concern over rising energy costs -- and a compromise is still being worked out.&#34;It's the short-term concerns overriding the longer-term benefits&#34; of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, said Ralph Izzo, chief executive of the Public Service Enterprise Group, a large New Jersey-based utility that supports putting a price on carbon emissions.Meanwhile, for the environmental groups trying to break this logjam, it's hard to imagine a more useful disaster.The BP oil spill has made something that is usually intangible -- the cost of fossil-fuel dependence -- into something tangibly awful. Environmental activists have held &#34;Hands Across the Sand&#34; events at gulf beaches to protest offshore drilling, and in the District they spelled out &#34;Freedom From Oil&#34; on the Mall with American flags. They have organized calls to Congress and have held viewing parties to watch films about oil dependence.&#34;This is probably our last best chance to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill,&#34; said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. &#34;This is the moment to choose.&#34;It's hard to tell how many people are listening.In public-opinion polls taken after the spill by Leiserowitz and other academics, 53 percent of people said they were worried about climate change. That was only slightly different from January, and still down from 63 percent in 2008.Leiserowitz said there may be distrust of climate science among a small group after the &#34;Climate-gate&#34; scandal last year, in which stolen e-mails seemed to show climate scientists talking about problems in their data. Those scientists have been repeatedly cleared of academic misconduct, including in a report released Wednesday.In addition, U.S. government estimates show that public demand for gasoline and electric power is looking stronger now than last year at this time. If these disasters have made individuals start conserving their energy use, &#34;it's not something that we've been able to observe,&#34; said Tancred Lidderdale of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.All of this makes a sharp contrast to 1969, when a far smaller oil spill -- 100,000 barrels (4.2 million gallons) -- hit beaches near Santa Barbara, Calif.That spill triggered new restrictions on offshore drilling and, along with other disasters such as the fire on Cleveland's Cuyahoga River, it helped spark the first Earth Day in 1970. In the years afterward, the government imposed historic new restrictions to protect clean water, clean air and endangered species.This year's spill hit in the era of recycling, organic food and hybrid cars: In fact, two days after the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank on Earth Day's 40th anniversary, April 22.But, experts say, the reaction to this spill revealed a shift toward quieter, less ambitious environmental politics.One reason is the economy: Concerns about unemployment have made the public and elected officials wary of the costs of change. People still remember $4-a-gallon gasoline a couple of summers ago, and don't want fossil fuel to become more expensive.&#34;There's a caveat,&#34; Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the rule that great change follows great disasters. &#34;Which is: Great tragedy, with the right timing, can bring great change. . . . When people are in a bunker mentality, sort of hunkered down over the economy, then that's not going to produce significant change.&#34;Another factor was likely the site of the spill. Louisiana residents, who are among the most affected by the oil, have vented anger at BP specifically -- but not as much against the wider oil industry, which plays a vital role in the state's economy.And the country's larger climate of mistrust may also play a role. Rich Gold, a lobbyist at Holland &#38; Knight who represents manufacturing companies in the climate debate, said people were not willing to rally behind government as an environmental savior.&#34;There's a feeling: 'The government really can't control all this stuff. They can't keep us safe,' &#34; said Gold, who said he is trying to work out a compromise climate bill that is more amenable to the industry. &#34;After Katrina and 9/11, we're in the post-'government can fix it all' world.&#34;At 11 weeks after the spill, some historians say it's too early to say it won't alter national environmental politics. Adam Rome, a historian of the U.S. environmental movement at Pennsylvania State University, said that it could take a year for the public to understand what the spill has done to the gulf -- and for politicians to understand what the spill has done to the public.&#34;If we don't do anything then, then it's a sign that we've entered into some newer, more passive mode of responding to disasters,&#34; Rome said.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Justice Department sues Arizona over immigration law</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7044</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7044</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[But legal experts said such a step is exceedingly rare.&#34;It's quite extraordinary,&#34; said Richard D. Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jerry Markon and Michael D. ShearThe Obama administration sued Arizona over the state's new immigration law on Tuesday, an assertion of federal power that sets up a rare clash with a state on one of the nation's most divisive political issues.The Justice Department lawsuit charges that the Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. Filed in federal court in Arizona, it says the state's measure is unconstitutional and asks a judge to stop it from taking effect.&#34;The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,&#34; the lawsuit says.The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, gives police the power to question anyone who they have a &#34;reasonable suspicion&#34; is an illegal immigrant.In challenging a state law, federal lawyers stepped squarely into the politically charged debate over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Reaction to the suit poured in from all sides, much of it blistering, making it clear that this was no ordinary legal filing but rather the start of a battle that will help define the midterm elections this fall.&#34;Not only does this lawsuit reveal the Obama administration's contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona, it reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts,&#34; 20 House Republicans said in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who administration officials said decided last week to challenge the law. President Obama, who had voiced strong opposition to the legislation, was briefed in the past few days, officials said.The administration disavowed any political calculus, with one senior Justice Department official saying: &#34;We're charged not with doing what's popular or partisan or political, but doing what we think is right.&#34;But other Democrats suggested that the legal fight could play to their advantage by placing them on the side of Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing minority. Though most polls show the Arizona law is broadly popular, leading Hispanic groups and politicians have condemned it.&#34;There is probably some short-term pain politically,&#34; said one senior Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to publicly contradict the administration. &#34;But considering the demographic changes the country is undergoing, long term there is a lot of upside in advocating for Latinos and comprehensive immigration reform.&#34;Criticism on civil rightsCivil rights groups call Arizona's statute the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants and say it targets Hispanics, though the legislation says police &#34;may not consider race, color or national origin&#34; in seeking to determine immigration status.At least five other lawsuits have been filed in federal court -- by civil rights groups and others -- challenging the law, which is scheduled to take effect July 29. Hearings are set for July 15 and July 22 in those cases, and Justice Department officials said they expect a hearing around the same time on their motion asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law.Justice officials cited two other examples of the federal government suing a state, including a 2007 lawsuit by the Bush administration challenging an Illinois law that tried to prevent employers from using an online system to determine immigration status. But legal experts said such a step is exceedingly rare.&#34;It's quite extraordinary,&#34; said Richard D. Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Typically, he said, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in lawsuits filed by others against state statutes.In their 25-page complaint, Justice lawyers cite the legal doctrine of &#34;preemption,&#34; which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has &#34;preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters,&#34; the lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.A practical argumentBeyond the legal prose, the government tries to make a practical argument: that the Arizona law would unduly burden federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. With Arizona referring so many illegal immigrants for deportation, the lawsuit says, federal officials would lose focus on top-priority targets such as immigrants involved in terrorism or other crimes.The suit also claims that the law would burden local law enforcement officials, three of whom provided declarations in support of the challenge. &#34;To require local police to act as immigration agents . . . is not realistic,&#34; wrote Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villase&#241;or.Although the lawsuit cites potential &#34;detention and harassment&#34; of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, &#34;we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that's something that we would take action on.''Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and an expert on preemption, said that the government makes &#34;a strong argument&#34; but that the case &#34;could go either way.&#34; Although the preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, he said, &#34;there is precedent on both sides of the question.&#34;Brewer called the lawsuit &#34;nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds,&#34; a sentiment also expressed by other Republicans. &#34;The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,&#34; John McCain and Jon Kyl, Arizona's senators, said in a statement.Liberal groups were equally fervent. &#34;We commend the Obama administration for taking this critical step to negate Arizona's unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling,&#34; said Lucas Guttentag, head of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Animal groups, Ohio farmers strike deal on cruelty</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7041</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Business Week</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Week]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7041</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The deal calls for Strickland, the Humane Society, the Ohio Farm Bureau and their partners to join forces in favor of tougher laws governing farm animals, including provisions that ban certain crates and cages and the use of strangulation as a form of euthanasia.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[By JULIE CARR SMYTH

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Animal welfare groups led by the Humane Society of the United States have agreed to abandon a fall ballot issue against animal cruelty as part of a deal with state farm groups brokered by Gov. Ted Strickland.

The agreement was struck just ahead of Wednesday's signature deadline. Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle said supporters had collected ample names to qualify for the ballot and had polling showing strong support.

Ohio Farm Bureau executive vice president Jack Fisher acknowledged that graphic video secretly recorded at an Ohio dairy farm and released in May by Chicago-based animal welfare group Mercy For Animals may have turned some Ohioans sour on the state's signature industry.

"It certainly elevated the issue, because that was animal cruelty in its highest form," he said.

A dairy farm worker was charged with 12 counts of cruelty to animals after the release of the video, which showed cows being kicked and poked with pitchforks.

Strickland said heading off an expensive, acrimonious ballot fight was also in the best interests of the state -- freeing up millions of campaign dollars for agricultural research and animal protection efforts.

"What we've arrived at here is a very common sense solution," Strickland said at a late afternoon news conference. "It's a recognition that we live in the real world, and it's also a recognition that we want to try to do better. So that's why both sides are willing to work together, to accomplish a worthy goal but to do so without damage to the agricultural economy of our state."

The pact, as yet unsigned, is the fifth such negotiated agreement in the nation, Pacelle said. The Humane Society has also cut such deals in Maine, Oregon, Colorado and Michigan. Three states have passed ballot measures similar to the Ohio initiative, Pacelle said.

The deal calls for Strickland, the Humane Society, the Ohio Farm Bureau and their partners to join forces in favor of tougher laws governing farm animals, including provisions that ban certain crates and cages and the use of strangulation as a form of euthanasia.

It also calls for setting felony-level penalties for cock fighting, cracking down on puppy mills and promoting a ban on future exotic pet purchases.

Pacelle said the deal isn't just about animal agriculture.

"This is a comprehensive animal welfare package that will move Ohio in a great direction on animal welfare," he said.

Fisher said fighting the ballot push would have cost millions of dollars and it was injecting uncertainty into the state's farm industry, responsible for one in seven Ohio jobs.

"This is all about risk management for our industry," Fisher said. "It's a commitment on behalf of the Humane Society and the agricultural community. We are both interested in animal care and animal welfare. This is about a way to achieve that."

The Mercy For Animals video was recorded in an undercover investigation at Conklin Dairy Farms Inc., a fourth-generation farm operation based in Plain City. It showed workers holding down newborn calves and stomping on their heads. It showed one worker wiring a cow's nose to a metal bar near the ground and repeatedly beating it with another bar while it bled.

The farm called the mistreatment reprehensible and unacceptable. The worker who was charged, Billy Joe Gregg Jr., pleaded not guilty.

The animal cruelty measure was the second fall ballot issue to evaporate in a week. On Monday, the committee seeking a referendum on a law allowing slots to be installed at Ohio's seven horse tracks announced it was withdrawing its issue as a result of the state's changing gambling landscape.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Obama: Fix &#8216;a broken immigration system&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7030</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>USA Today</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USA Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7030</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[His administration is expected to file a lawsuit against Arizona, but the president did not discuss that plan. Obama also put the onus on Republicans to pass a comprehensive immigration law, saying Congress cannot pass it without GOP votes. "That is the political and mathematical reality," he said. Loretta Sanchez, D-Cal., said current immigration law splits up families.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[President Obama today called for a "practical, common sense" immigration system that will help the U.S. economy and maintain America's immigrant tradition -- and he put the pressure on Republicans to get it through Congress."Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," Obama said in his first major immigration speech as president . "That is the political and mathematical reality."Obama said his administration has already taken record-setting actions to strengthen the border, and also urged Congress to approve "a pathway to legal status" for the 11 million or so illegal immigrants who are already here.Immigration has become "a source of fresh contention" in recent days because of the new Arizona law that gives police greater authority to question people's citizenship, Obama said in his first major immigration speech as president. His administration is expected to file a lawsuit against Arizona, but the president did not discuss that plan.Speaking to lawmakers, academics, and community leaders gathered at American University, Obama touted his plan by stressing the immeasurable contributions that immigrants have made to the United States, and the frequent discrimination they faced throughout history. "Immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country," Obama said.Obama also put the onus on Republicans to pass a comprehensive immigration law, saying Congress cannot pass it without GOP votes. "That is the political and mathematical reality," he said.While Obama's plan would include a path to citizenship as well as tighter borders, its chances for passage in Congress don't appear to be great.Congressional Republicans, and some Democrats, said the government should focus on better law enforcement better moving on to such things as guest worker programs. In the meantime, lawmakers who are already grappling with new Wall Street regulations and an energy bill are also looking at congressional elections only four months from tomorrow.Obama said political posturing on an emotional issue has delayed congressional action, and, as a result, "states like Arizona have started to take matters into their own hands."Such an approach is understandable but "ill-conceived," Obama said, arguing that an immigration system requires a national approach rather than a "patchwork" of state laws, and puts too much of a burden on local law enforcement."These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents," Obama said, "making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound."At points in his speech, Obama criticized both sides of the immigration debate.Some immigration rights groups all but encourage illegal migration, Obama said, though at least 11 million people are in fact breaking the law by not going through the citizenship process.As for critics of "amnesty," Obama said it's simply impossible to deport 11 million people, and doing so would disrupt communities and break up families, as undocumented immigrants have children who are U.S. citizens because they were born here.The pathway to citizenship plan "also means we have a younger workforce and a faster growing economy than many of our competitors," Obama said. "And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition."Appearing on CNN this morning, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Cal., said current immigration law splits up families. She also said a more organized immigration system will help the U.S. economy."When the economy turns around, we'll need more workers than the ones we have in the United States," she said. "So we have to get ready for that."Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Cal., said the government should not reward people "for being here illegally" with "amnesty." He said employers should be forced to hire legal immigrants through a system known as "e-verify." Other issues, he said, should be addressed "after we've secured our borders and our workplace."]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>President Obama&#8217;s &#8216;Moment of Truth&#8217; on Energy Bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7006</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Politico</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7006</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[If he’s going to have any success, many up-close observers said, the president needs to spell out what he wants in a legislative package — and if he doesn’t, he risks losing control of a debate that promises to quickly split along both partisan and regional lines.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[With time ticking away before the midterm elections, President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan group of senators at the White House on Tuesday in the hope of finding some consensus on capping greenhouse gases.

If he’s going to have any success, many up-close observers said, the president needs to spell out what he wants in a legislative package — and if he doesn’t, he risks losing control of a debate that promises to quickly split along both partisan and regional lines.

"This is the moment of truth,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Obama presidential campaign adviser. “If the administration buttresses its strong general commitment for action with one or two pages of legislative specs, there’s still hope for targeted climate provisions.”

“Absent a specific White House proposal,” Grumet added, “Republicans and conservative Democrats seem likely to steer the debate away from climate” and toward provisions that respond to the BP oil spill and less aggressive provisions that promote renewable energy without a cap on heat-trapping emissions.

To date, Obama has weighed in on some of the key details in the climate debate. He’s still calling for a 17 percent cut in heat-trapping emissions by 2020. He has let go of a campaign pledge to auction off 100 percent of a cap-and-trade program’s valuable compliance allowances, instead accepting free giveaways to different industrial sectors, including power plants and trade-sensitive manufacturers. And he’s offered an olive branch to labor unions and key industries by signaling, through a top deputy, that he’d accept trade sanctions against developing nations that don’t have their own strong climate policies.
Yet many want Obama to take even more ownership of the climate bill, especially as Democratic leaders in the Senate struggle to find 60 votes amid calls for a scaled-back energy bill from moderate Democrats and Republicans. Some are looking to Obama to suggest he’d accept a compromise on carbon limits, maybe by focusing just on emissions from power plants. Others want Obama to recognize the political reality of what’s possible just months before the November elections.

“The president shouldn’t begin unless he has some reasonable assurance that we could accomplish, if not 100 percent of what he wants, [then] 80 percent,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be among those paying the most attention at the White House. The Nevada Democrat is tasked with trying to cobble together pieces from different legislative proposals that can win 60 votes on the floor. Reid’s job was always tough, but it grew even harder on Monday with the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), a longtime opponent of greenhouse gas caps who had recently shown a change of heart in working on the issue. Byrd’s successor is likely to face considerable pressure to vote against any type of carbon limits given West Virginia’s pro-coal politics.

Grasping for every vote he can find, Reid wants to package climate provisions in a broader bill that’s seen as the Senate’s response to the BP oil spill. Such a move is designed to put political pressure on Republicans while public opinion turns against Big Oil in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. But it could backfire absent sufficient White House cover.

Speaking to reporters last week, Reid signaled that much of the burden for vote counting rests on Obama.

“I think it’s pretty clear we have to do something,” Reid said. “The question is, what do we do? Now, a lot of that depends on what the White House is going to do to help us get something done.”

White House officials said they expect the meeting — rescheduled from last week because of a last-minute emergency session to overhaul the military leadership in Afghanistan — to revolve around the question of the “vehicle to advance legislation in the Senate and who will form the coalition.”

“We will seek to answer that [Tuesday], but there should be no doubt that the president intends to meet his commitment to find the votes,” a White House aide said.

Obama’s own ability to find 60 votes on climate legislation remains something of a mystery. Senate Democrats criticized the president earlier this year for not doing enough to respond to negative attacks on the health care bill and for avoiding specifics until very late in the game. But with the climate bill now on the front burner, some of his former Senate colleagues said Obama needs to let them work out the details for themselves.

“We ought to have comprehensive energy legislation, but it’s up to us to try and figure out how to do it,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who will be at the meeting Tuesday, said he’s not expecting many details to emerge. “I don’t think he’s going to be laying out a plan,” Dorgan told POLITICO. “I think he’s going to be trying to determine what’s achievable here. I think it’s a meeting to consult with a group of interested people on these subjects — and then make a judgment.”

Obama also must deal with Republicans, who have largely stayed unified against the rest of his domestic agenda. Many are itching to cry foul if he gets too specific now about carbon caps and therefore signals an unwillingness to budge.

“It cuts both ways,” said a former Senate Democratic aide. “You want to have a dialogue with Republicans, but if you put out a piece of paper, they can recoil and say he doesn’t want to listen to us.”

For now, Republicans will go into the White House meeting signaling that listening is all they want to do. Their leaders have dubbed Obama’s climate goals a “national energy tax,” and they want him, instead, to pare back on his ambitions to focus solely on the oil spill.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who in April abruptly ended nine months of bipartisan talks on climate legislation because of immigration policies, said that while he’s “willing to talk to anybody” on the energy issue, he can’t attend the White House meeting because it conflicts with confirmation hearings for Gen. David Petraeus.

“I have no message,” added New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, another Republican who’s in the White House’s sights because of his past support for mandatory carbon limits. “I’m just going to listen.”]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>FDA seeks less use of antibiotics in animals to keep them effective for humans</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7020</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7020</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The drugs are often added to drinking water and feed. We don't believe people are going to act against their own economic interest because FDA asks them politely to do it.&#34;Rep.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Lyndsey LaytonThe Food and Drug Administration urged farmers on Monday to stop giving antibiotics to cattle, poultry, hogs and other animals to spur their growth, citing concern that drug overuse is helping to create dangerous bacteria that do not respond to medical treatment and endanger human lives.Joshua M. Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy commissioner, said antibiotics should be used only to protect the health of an animal and not to help it grow or improve the way it digests its feed.&#34;This is an urgent public health issue,&#34; Sharfstein said during a conference call with reporters. &#34;To preserve the effectiveness [of antibiotics], we simply must use them as judiciously as possible.&#34;The FDA issued a draft of its guidance, and the public has 60 days to comment on the draft.Sharfstein said that the guidance was a first step, and the agency would issue new regulations if the industry does not comply voluntarily.&#34;We have the regulatory mechanisms, and industry knows that,&#34; he said. &#34;We also think things can be done voluntarily. We're not handcuffed to the steering wheel of a particular strategy, but I'm not ruling out anything that we can do to establish these important public-health goals.&#34;The FDA has tried to limit the use of antibiotics in agriculture since 1977, but its efforts have repeatedly collapsed in the face of opposition from the drug industry and farm lobby.But mounting evidence of a global crisis of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has propelled the government to act, said Brad Spellberg, an infectious-diseases specialist and the author of &#34;Rising Plague,&#34; a book about antibiotic resistance.&#34;The writing is on the wall,&#34; said Spellberg, who teaches at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. &#34;We're in an era where antibiotic resistance is out of control, and we're running out of drugs and new drugs are not being developed. We can't continue along the path we're on.&#34;The European Union banned the feeding of antibiotics and related drugs to livestock for growth promotion in 2006.U.S. farmers routinely give antibiotics to food-producing animals to treat illnesses, prevent infection and encourage growth. The drugs are often added to drinking water and feed. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of antibiotics and related drugs used in the United States are given to animals.Many of the same classes of drugs fed to animals are deemed &#34;critically&#34; important in human medicine by the FDA, including penicillin, tetracyclines and sulfonamides. In recent years, public health experts say there has been an alarming increase in the number of bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics, leading to severe, untreatable illnesses in humans.Bacteria can transfer from animals to humans in several ways -- in food, through farm workers and through air, water and soil contaminated by manure.The Animal Health Institute, which represents companies that make drugs for animals, said Monday that it agrees that antibiotics should be used in a &#34;judicious manner.&#34; But groups on both sides of the issue lobbed criticism at the FDA's latest effort. Farming interests, including the National Pork Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, suggested the FDA needs more evidence before it dictates changes to long-standing practices of administering antibiotics to animals.&#34;Show us the science that use of antibiotics in animal production is causing this antibiotic resistance,&#34; said Dave Warner of the pork council. &#34;How do we know [the problem] is not on the human side? Where is the science for you to go forward on this?&#34;Public health groups, however, said the agency's actions were too tentative.&#34;The policy is good, but you can't have a policy unless you have a mechanism to implement,&#34; said Steve Roach of Keep Antibiotics Working, a coalition of health and environmental groups. &#34;Their hope is the industry is voluntarily going to go along. We don't believe people are going to act against their own economic interest because FDA asks them politely to do it.&#34;Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who has filed legislation to limit the use of antibiotics in agriculture, said FDA officials &#34;have not gone far enough or moved fast enough.&#34;&#34;Scientists and public health experts have known for many years that these drugs were being overused by farmers,&#34; she said.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Bipartisan group of senators ends meeting without deal on climate bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7018</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7018</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) unveiled a bill along with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) that includes the broader emissions cap along with subsidies for the nuclear industry and limits on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon. But many Republicans remained unconvinced.Alaska Sen.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Juliet EilperinA bipartisan group of senators emerged Tuesday from a meeting with President Obama still divided over how to craft a climate and energy bill, with lawmakers predicting a scaled-back bill that would cap emissions from electric utilities rather than impose an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gases.Last month Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) unveiled a bill along with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) that includes the broader emissions cap along with subsidies for the nuclear industry and limits on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon. He said in an interview they would make more concessions to win Republican support, but added, &#34;My question is, which is the compromise of any of the others? Show me the compromise.&#34;In an hour-and-a-half meeting, Obama urged the 23 senators to &#34;aim high,&#34; several senators said. But Obama also made it clear &#34;he wasn't putting out a particular recipe&#34; for a bill, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said. &#34;The Senate is going to have to figure this out.&#34;Two GOP senators -- Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe -- said they would support forcing emitters to pay for their carbon output. But many Republicans remained unconvinced.Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said any measure that imposed mandatory limits on greenhouse gases and made emitters pay for carbon dioxide emissions &#34;will not sell in this country.&#34; And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), another member of the panel, said he told the president to focus instead on pouring federal dollars into energy research and development, building nuclear power plants and electrifying the nation's auto fleet.Lawmakers discussed a more modest climate and energy bill that would target electric utilities and other stationary sources: power plants alone account for roughly 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Snowe issued a statement after the meeting supporting such a plan.However it is unclear whether there are sufficient votes for a utility-only carbon cap, said Joe Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton &#38; Williams. Major power companies probably would demand several concessions for backing the bill, including preemption from regulation under the Clean Air Act and new rules on mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.And Collins, who has authored her own climate bill with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said she could only support a price on carbon if revenues from pollution allowances were returned to consumers. She added, &#34;It's going to be very difficult&#34; to find any bill that can muster 60 votes. &#34;The White House meeting underscored to me how many diverse views there are on how to proceed with any clean energy bill.&#34;Ralph Izzo, president and CEO of the New Jersey-based utility PSEG, said Tuesday his company could support a utilities-only bill: &#34;It's a second-choice to economy-wide, but if you have to start with a single sector, this would be the logical sector to start with.&#34;Environmentalists such as Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy for the National Wildlife Federation, immediately questioned Republicans' resistance to a sweeping carbon cap.&#34;Republican leadership emerged from a meeting today saying nothing different than from a year ago,&#34; Mendelson said in a statement. &#34;With a Gulf disaster and the public galvanized in favor of climate action, unfortunately they are still reading from Joe Barton's playbook.&#34;But several senators made it clear in the meeting they did not feel compelled to meet environmentalists' expectations. At the outset of the meeting, according to sources who asked not to be identified because it was a private session, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Kerry and Lieberman's climate bill should serve as the base text for a broad energy bill. After some senators objected to this plan, the group discussed having either an oil spill bill authored by Murkowski and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) or an energy bill the two senators wrote serve as the base text.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>FBACT Newswatch: Farm Program, Poultry to Russia, Climate Change, Ehtanol and YouTube</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7003</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:31:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=7003</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Peterson Warns of Reduced Farm Bill Payments
 
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said the next farm bill may include reduced payments in order to cut the budget to reduce the deficit. 
“We’re not going to have any new money; we’ll probably have less money,” Peterson said at a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing on [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Peterson Warns of Reduced Farm Bill Payments
 
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said the next farm bill may include reduced payments in order to cut the budget to reduce the deficit. 
“We’re not going to have any new money; we’ll probably have less money,” Peterson said at a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing on the farm bill Thursday.  
At the hearing, Philip Nelson, Illinois Farm Bureau president, said the structure of the 2008 bill should be maintained even if overall funding is reduced. At the hearing, Nelson outlined Farm Bureau’s five farm bill principles.
 
Agreement Reopens Russian Market to U.S. Poultry
  
U.S. poultry exports are expected to resume to Russia once conditions of an agreement announced Thursday by the Agriculture Department and U.S. Trade Representative are met.
  
The announcement came after a White House meeting between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev where the poultry ban was discussed in the context of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization.
  
Once the agreement is signed, U.S. producers will be able to resume shipments of poultry to Russia.  Under the agreement, the United States will publish information on USDA’s website about which disinfectants/pathogen reductions treatments are known to be approved by Russia for use on processing poultry and on food generally.  
 
 
 
No Energy Bill Comes From Senate Democratic Caucus
  
Democratic senators held a caucus Thursday on energy legislation, but the discussion failed to create any clear direction for legislation. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to bring energy legislation to the floor next month.
  
The bill is expected to include provisions that respond to the BP oil spill, boost conservation efforts and develop the use of “clean” energy. A key aim of the bill will be to overhaul federal offshore drilling oversight due to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
  
The bill could include measures that will impose caps on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources.
  
 
Harkin Accuses DOE of Bias Against Ethanol
  
Following the Environmental Protection Agency’s delay of a decision regarding higher blends of corn-based ethanol for the domestic fuel supply, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is growing weary about the administration’s possible “bias” against ethanol, according to a story published by RadioIowa.com.
  
“I have a feeling that there are people at the Department of Energy, including the secretary of energy, that are just anti-ethanol,” Harkin told the Learfield Communications website. He also said he overheard “U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu make a discouraging comment about the corn-based renewable fuel during a speech last year,” according to the story.
  
“He said something to the effect that we have to recognize that ethanol needs to be phased out or is going to be phased out or it’s on its way out and I took note of that. I’m just wondering if the secretary has just closed his mind to the benefits of ethanol,” Harkin said.
  
“Evidently, the EPA is relying on the Department of Energy to do the testing,” Harkin said. “We’ve had enough tests. We’ve tested this forever, yet now the Department of Energy says they want to do more tests.” 
 
 
YouTube Labels Chris Chinn Hog Farm Video ‘Inappropriate’
What makes a video inappropriate?  It’s like the old quote from a former senator about pornography, “I know it when I see it.”  Apparently that’s what employees at YouTube thought about video of hogs living on Chris Chinn’s Missouri farm, when they flagged the video as inappropriate for anyone under 18 and could only be viewed by adults who are YouTube members.  
  
“At first I thought it was a mistake and after two or three months of attempting to get my video unflagged I realized that it wasn’t a mistake, that my First Amendment rights were being censored and I was not being allowed to tell my story,” Chinn said.  “I was upset.  I was very frustrated because we went from having over 1,000 views a month on our video to barely getting 100 views a month.”
  
YouTube didn’t notify Chinn that they were flagging her video or give an explanation.  The only reason she discovered it had happened was because one day her daughter wanted to watch it.
  
“I went to their safety page and it explained there that the reason that they would flag a video as inappropriate was because of: privacy, teen safety, sexual content, sexual abuse, animal abuse or abuse in general. It really confused me because my video had none of those things in it,” Chinn said.
 
The restrictions have been lifted, but no one from YouTube would comment on the reasons behind any of their actions.
 
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Wonkbook: Jobs bill fails again; DISCLOSE Act passes House; Reid&#8217;s climate strategy</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6984</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6984</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Menendez, Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.).&#34;Want Wonkbook delivered to your e-mail or mobile device every morning? But the way to confront those skeptics is to show that they're wrong-as many dedicated climate scientists have done, again and again. But lawmakers ignored the advice again and again.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ezra KleinRough day yesterday for Senate Democrats' -- and for the unemployed -- as the $100 billion bill extending unemployment insurance and supporting state budgets once again failed in the Senate. The bill, though mostly paid for, would've added about $30 billion to the deficit, which gave Republicans all the excuse they needed to block it. Looking forward to other legislation that Republicans would like to avoid voting for, Harry Reid is expected to try and pass a climate bill by wrapping it in legislation meant to address the BP oil spill.Meanwhile, the House did its normal thing and continued to pass legislation: Yesterday, the compromise version of the DISCLOSE Act squeaked through, complete with the NRA-exemption. Watch also for a final deal on financial reform today, and a GDP revision from the Commerce Department.It's Friday, which means we've only got three more days till Monday! Welcome to Wonkbook.Top StoriesRepublicans and Ben Nelson successfully filibustered the latest version of the Senate jobs bill, reports Lori Montgomery: &#34;Emergency jobless benefits, which provide up to 99 weeks of income support, expired June 2. Since then, more than 1.2 million people have had their checks cut off, according to estimates by the Labor Department. That number is expected to rise to more than 2 million people by the time Congress returns from its week-long break. Unless Congress acts, the program would phase out entirely by the end of October.&#34;John Kerry: &#8220;This is one of the worst moments I&#8217;ve seen in 25 years in the United States Senate. In times of economic trouble, our country expects Democrats and Republicans to pull together and do the basics. Now, after eight weeks of debate and after every effort to make changes and find common ground, the Minority Leader has again found a way to unify his caucus to block legislation that extends unemployment benefits, creates jobs and provides hundreds of millions of dollars in desperately needed assistance for states...The Senate has to do better than this.&#34;Scott Brown: &#8220;Increasing the deficit and raising taxes is not what Americans are looking for from their elected leaders in Washington. I cannot support the debt extenders bill because it still includes tens of billions in tax increases and still includes tens of billions in deficit spending.&#34;The House voted 219-206 for the NRA-exempting version of the DISCLOSE Act, with three dozen Dems voting no: http://bit.ly/dzbi38Harry Reid will tack the climate bill onto bipartisan legislation overhauling offshore drilling oversight, report Coral Davenport and Darren Samuelsohn: &#34;Reid plans to build the floor package around a bill fast-tracked for approval next week in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that would impose new safety and environmental rules and increase oversight of oil companies doing offshore exploration. Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman and ranking member on the committee, respectively, introduced the legislation together on Monday, with plans to amend it next week with more oil spill ideas from Sens. Menendez, Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.).&#34;Want Wonkbook delivered to your e-mail or mobile device every morning? Subscribe!Noam Scheiber says the race to replace Peter Orszag is down to Gene Sperling and Laura Tyson: http://bit.ly/bEq6mqMusic tinkering interlude: An app to give any song a swing tempo.Still to come: Halliburton and Transocean try to squirm away from BP; some Senators want to jack up estate tax rates; an immigration reform backer throws in the towel; and a bear chills in a hot tub. Oh, and Wonkbook has a new section!EnergyNo one knows Lindsey Graham's real reason for pulling support for a climate bill, reports Darren Samuelsohn: &#34;Some see GOP leadership pulling Graham&#8217;s strings, essentially yanking him back just days before he planned to introduce a bill with Kerry, Lieberman and a large coalition of energy companies, environmentalists, retired military brass and religious leaders. Others see tea party politics back in South Carolina, where incumbent Republicans are losing their jobs and Sarah Palin is anointing a new face for the party in gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley.&#34;Non-BP participants in the oil spill are trying to limit their liability, report David Hilzenrath and Kimberly Kindy: &#34;Halliburton, a project contractor, says it followed instructions from the well owner, a group led by BP. Transocean, which leased the rig to BP, says it was liable only for surface spills -- not those emanating from the sea bottom. Anadarko Petroleum, a venture partner, implies that it may be off the hook because BP likely engaged in 'gross negligence or willful misconduct.'&#34;BP's Bob Dudley is taking on the task of repairing the company's image: http://bit.ly/dtCTSlThe administration is citing a study purporting to show that climate skeptics aren't respected in their fields. It shows no such thing, writes Michael Levi: &#34;The authors of the paper are right that the world is running dangerous risks with the climate system. They are right to be angry at those who claim that climate change is a hoax, and at those in the media who give them a platform to confuse the public. But the way to confront those skeptics is to show that they're wrong-as many dedicated climate scientists have done, again and again. Hyping this paper, instead, simply reinforces the dangerous perception that climate activists will credulously push any news that might further their case.&#34;Muppets interlude: OK Go has a staring contest with Animal, while Zach Galifianakis and Ira Glass watch.Economy/FinRegBernie Sanders, along with Tom Harkin, Sherrod Brown, and Sheldon Whitehouse, is proposing a more steeply progressive estate tax, reports Laura Sanders: &#34;Under the proposal, as in 2009, the exemption would be $3.5 million for an individual, or as much as $7 million for a couple, with a tax rate of 45%. But estates with taxable assets between $10 million and $50 million would pay a 50% rate, and estates valued above $50 million would pay 55%. A further 10% surtax would apply to assets above $500 million.&#34;Obama's economic policy team runs on conflict, reports Caren Bohan: &#34;Blunt, brash, brainy and occasionally self-mocking. Larry Summers, the White House economic adviser, is all of these things. In a career spanning academia, government and finance, he has rubbed some people the wrong way and infuriated others. So when President Barack Obama named him director of the National Economic Council, skeptics could be forgiven for wondering how Summers would fit in with the 'No Drama Obama' management style. Eighteen months later, the question persists.&#34;Housing experts are denouncing Fannie Mae's new rules on mortgage defaults as needlessly cruel: http://nyti.ms/awcZjZEven before FinReg passes, new state and federal laws are upping consumer financial protections, reports Sudeep Reddy: &#34;On July 1, Arizona will force changes on the state's 595 payday-loan stores-outfits that make high-interest loans against future paychecks-that could effectively put them out of business. Wisconsin banned small loans backed by car titles that led many people to lose their vehicles. Arkansas, Maine and New York joined other states in putting curbs on tax preparers who offer costly loans against expected tax refunds. The federal government, meanwhile, is for the first time requiring that lenders verify a borrower's income and assets before issuing a home loan.&#34;Mortgage rates are at an all-time low, with no lending bump to show for it: http://bit.ly/cTP1SIBlanche Lincoln is blocking attempts at a compromise on derivatives, report Meredith Shiner and Carrie Budoff Brown: &#34;At a leadership meeting, top Democrats told her the language was causing vote problems in the House, but she had no plans to budge, Lincoln told POLITICO Wednesday night. 'I like what we got,' Lincoln said. 'I&#8217;m always open to listening to people in terms of what their concerns are and suggestions are, but I do want to see a strong bill.'&#34;Grassley is backing Lincoln on derivatives reform, reports Victoria McGrane: http://bit.ly/azjTn5Bears, bears, bears interlude: A bear hangs out in a hot tub.Domestic PolicyRep. Luis Gutierrez, a major backer of immigration reform, has conceded the votes aren't there this Congress, reports Molly Hooper: &#34;'There are an insufficient number of Democratic votes to pass this in the Senate or in the House. I&#8217;ve said it. There are an insufficient number. We are 102 strong, we are 102 commitment, but we are insufficient,' Gutierrez said.&#34;Michael Bloomberg is leading a group of mayors and businesspeople pushing for immigration reform: http://bit.ly/9OwhNkUtah is moving forward with health care reform even as it sues to stop it, reports Anna Wilde Mathews: &#34;Yet, on Thursday, Gov. Gary R. Herbert announced a step towards its implementation: Utah will join 29 other states and the District of Columbia in running its own insurance pool to cover high-risk people. Other states let the federal government handle the program, concerned they would have to pay for it if they exhausted their federal funding.&#34;The House has sent the &#34;doc fix&#34; to the White House: http://politi.co/ac15DGTom Harkin is hinting card check legislation may come up for a vote during the lame duck session of Congress: http://bit.ly/bnlUZyAnalysis and OpinionNoah Feldman argues that the Supreme Court needs a new liberal philosophy that takes economic changes seriously: &#34;The great economic and political challenges of our present decade - salvaging and fixing financial institutions, delivering health care, protecting the environment - have major constitutional dimensions. They require us to determine the limits of government power and the extent to which the state can impinge on collective and individual freedoms. Progressive constitutional thinkers, so skilled in arguing about social and civil rights, are out of practice in addressing such structural economic questions.&#34;Howard Gleckman writes that the home buyer's tax credit failed exactly as it was predicted to fail: &#34;The hardest bit to swallow is not so much that the homebuyer tax credit is a boondoggle. It is that it was a totally predictable waste of money. Economists warned Congress in 2008 that the credit would do little more than shift timing decisions by a few months. But lawmakers ignored the advice again and again. Remarkably, the Senate may be about to give buyers still more time to close on homes they put contracts on before April 30. That way, they can squeeze the last few dollars out of a failed credit.&#34;Daniel Gross wonders why Ben Bernanke doesn't seem to care about unemployment: &#34;First, it could be that Bernanke and the Fed are simply exhausted.&#8230;The Fed used up all its resources saving the system. Now it's time for the political system and the private sector to do their thing. Second, it could be a failure of imagination. In recent years, Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have proved themselves to be poor predictors of how big macroeconomic trends-low interest rates, unregulated subprime lending, the rampant use of derivatives-can have negative social, economic, and political impacts.&#34;Health care reform will change the health care you have - and that's okay, writes Kate Pickert: The new regulations, after all, are designed to protect consumers. If job-based plans have to change - and are not dropped by employers - they will do so in ways that limit what workers have to pay out of pocket and what insurers can refuse to cover.&#8230;Plus, it's not as though the employer-based insurance market is reliable and stable in its current form. Most employees don't have any control over the structure of their health insurance.&#34;Ethanol may not have much environmental benefits, reports Erica Gies: &#34;Corn farming is the biggest source of pollution associated with ethanol production. Corn requires vastly more fertilizer and pesticides than soybeans or other potential biofuel feedstocks, such as perennial grasses, according to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences. 'Per unit of energy gained, biodiesel from soy requires just 2 percent of the nitrogen and 8 percent of the phosphorous needed for corn ethanol,' and the differentials in pesticide use are similar, the report said.&#34;Closing credits: Wonkbook compiled with the help of Dylan Matthews and Mike Shepard.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Obama to push climate change on back of BP spill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6972</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Financial Times</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Financial Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6972</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Since he was a presidential candidate, Mr Obama has been promoting legislation that would put a cap on carbon emissions from polluters but allow them to buy permits to emit more.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[By Anna Fifield in Washington

Barack Obama will on Wednesday make a renewed push to spur the US Senate into action on climate change, saying the BP oil spill underlines the urgency for the country to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels.

The US president will host senators from both parties at the White House – including those who have proposed variations on a climate change bill – but analysts are sceptical about whether he can overcome the political impasse on a proposal that is seen as essentially a tax.


“The oil spill has dramatically increased the urgency for the need to act,” said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “But I’m not looking for any breakthrough at the meeting. I think President Obama wants to listen to various concerns and follow up on various ideas.”

Since he was a presidential candidate, Mr Obama has been promoting legislation that would put a cap on carbon emissions from polluters but allow them to buy permits to emit more.

That effort ground to a halt in the Senate, but has moved back into the spotlight, thanks to the oil spill.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” the president said in a televised address last week.

The president will meet senators on Wednesday including Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins, all of whom have put forward bills for promoting cleaner energy or limiting carbon emissions.

Democrats John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman and Maria Cantwell, who have also been involved in drafting legislation, will also be there, as will Joe Lieberman, an independent.

“The president is going to talk about the progress, talk about what we need to do to get a deal and actually move some legislation forward,” said Bill Burton, a White House spokesman.

Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate, who has called cap-and-trade a “national energy tax”, has accused Mr Obama of trying to take political advantage of the oil spill.

A cap-and-trade bill passed through the House of Representatives last year but the process stalled in the Senate amid objections from Democrats representing industrial or rural states. Partisan rancour means aligned Republicans have backed away too.

That has made a simple energy bill – to boost energy efficiency and cut greenhouse gas emissions – look more feasible than a comprehensive climate change bill.

“It’s hard to see how, in this economic environment, they could get the critical element – a price on carbon – through the Senate,” says Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. “But I can imagine them getting an energy bill through.”

Mr Obama backs cap-and-trade but is open to options. “He wants to listen to some of the other ideas,” Mr Burton said.

The leading climate bill, put forward by Mr Kerry and Mr Lieberman, would use a cap-trade system, taxing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations and oil refineries.

Mr Lieberman at the weekend said he would be willing to limit the bill, starting just with utilities.

Ms Cantwell, a Democrat, and Ms Collins, a Republican, are pushing a “cap-and-dividend” approach. Instead of setting up a carbon emission trading market, this would give rebates to utility customers. Mr Lugar’s bill has no cap but would offer incentives for non-fossil energy sources.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>With the arrival of summer, congressional legislating gives way to campaigning</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6965</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6965</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Perry Bacon Jr.Democrats have a long list of national problems they say they want to solve. Almost two months ago, after Arizona passed a controversial immigration law, Sen. The immigration legislation would not cost much in terms of direct federal outlays of money, and no money is appropriated through the budget.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Perry Bacon Jr.Democrats have a long list of national problems they say they want to solve. Almost two months ago, after Arizona passed a controversial immigration law, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that &#34;the urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated.&#34; In his speech last week calling for a major energy bill, President Obama said it was important to &#34;seize the moment.&#34;But on Friday, the office of House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who directs the House's schedule, offered a telling signal of the declining legislative momentum of Democrats in Congress. It released a memo detailing the chamber's schedule for the rest of the year. House members, originally scheduled to spend five weeks of recess in their districts this summer, will get to leave Washington a week early -- Aug. 2 instead of Aug. 9.The time is not likely to be spent on the beach. The schedule change could be dubbed &#34;the fierce urgency of winning reelection.&#34; It will provide wary Democrats in contested districts one more week to campaign and one less week to be in Washington casting votes their GOP opponents could turn against this them.But it also provides one less week for passing key measures, another sign that congressional Democrats might not have the stomach or the votes to push through much more controversial legislation. Congress is not likely to pass major bills in September and October, when members are even more focused on campaigning, although it could push through some bills in the few weeks that it meets after the elections.&#34;With unemployment near double-digits, no plan to offer a budget, and without a bill passed to give our troops fighting overseas the money they need, this seems an odd time for Democratic leaders to announce they want to do one less week of work here in Washington,&#34; said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.)Hoyer's spokeswoman, Katie Grant, said, &#34;We want to give our members as much time as possible to be back working in their districts and hearing from constituents.&#34;Republicans should welcome the extra recess, as they constantly complain Democrats are passing too many bills too quickly. And much of the legislation Democrats want to pass, such as changes to immigration laws, have little chance of getting through Congress because of ardent GOP opposition.But the memo illustrates a new dynamic on Capitol Hill: The era of big legislation is nearing its end, at least until after the November elections. In the first 17 months of the Obama administration, Democrats pushed through a $787 billion stimulus package and massive bills to change the health-care and financial regulatory systems.Now, Democrats, wary of the sticker shock of passing a bill that could be described as more than $3 trillion in spending, have virtually abandoned trying to pass a budget, a nonbinding document that has been approved in the House every year for the past two decades. A bill to extend unemployment benefits has been stalled for weeks, constantly shrinking in size to accommodate conservative Democrats wary of increasing the deficit.Facing opposition from Republicans and some Democrats, liberal lawmakers have virtually abandoned pushing for changes to immigration laws or a New Deal-style program in which the federal government would give states and localities billions of dollars to hire unemployed people for public works jobs.This legislative slowdown is not unusual; lawmakers in both parties usually start shifting toward campaign mode by the summer before an election.And Democrats have not stopped trying to legislate completely. Senate Democrats are considering trying to pass some kind of energy legislation in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and lawmakers are working to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the regulatory reform bill so it can be signed by Obama.But the election dynamic is changing the agenda, as some lawmakers think now is the time to focus on deficit reduction. The immigration legislation would not cost much in terms of direct federal outlays of money, and no money is appropriated through the budget. Both votes, however, would be politically challenging.&#34;A lot depends on whether Democrats collectively make a judgment they are going to be better off making a case based on the extraordinary output in Congress. You can make the case; the best thing to say is, 'We acted, we did something on energy, on the economy, on Wall Street,' &#34; said Norman Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute. &#34;But there is going to be a substantial sentiment saying, 'Enough already. Anything we do will put us more in the crosshairs.' &#34;Ornstein predicted that Democrats will push through an energy bill despite the wariness and said that they might regret it if they don't try.&#34;This is your cliched 'window of opportunity,' &#34; he said. &#34;If you lose 30 seats in the House or you lose the House entirely [after November], you won't be talking about going too far. You won't be able to get anything done.&#34;]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s energy pipe dreams</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6953</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6953</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the &#34;clean&#34; energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. The second is less appreciated: a more muddled energy debate.Obama has made vilification of oil and the oil industry a rhetorical mainstay. In 2008, fossil fuels met 87 percent of its energy needs, reports the International Energy Agency.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Robert J. Samuelson&#34;For decades, we've talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. . . . Time and time again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.&#34;-- Barack Obama, June 15 address on the BP oil spillJust once, it would be nice if a president would level with Americans on energy. Barack Obama isn't that president. His speech the other night was about political damage control -- his own. It was full of misinformation and mythology. Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the &#34;clean&#34; energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. It isn't going to happen for many, many decades, if ever.For starters, we won't soon end our &#34;addiction to fossil fuels.&#34; Oil, coal and natural gas supply about 85 percent of America's energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035, but that's still a 14 percent cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035 and its share would still account for 78 percent of the total.Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings will be more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size). Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008.There are physical limits on new energy sources, as Robert Bryce shows in his book &#34;Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.&#34; Suppose an inventor &#34;found a way to convert soybeans into jet fuel,&#34; Bryce writes. &#34;Even with that invention, the conversion of all of America's yearly soybean production into jet fuel would only provide about 20 percent of U.S. jet fuel demand.&#34; Jet fuel, in turn, is about 8 percent of U.S. oil use. Similarly, wind turbines have limited potential; they must be supported by backup generating capacity when there's no breeze.The consequences of the BP oil spill come in two parts. The first is familiar: the fire; the deaths; coated birds; polluted wetlands; closed beaches; anxious fishermen. The second is less appreciated: a more muddled energy debate.Obama has made vilification of oil and the oil industry a rhetorical mainstay. This is intellectually shallow, if politically understandable. &#34;Clean energy&#34; won't displace oil or achieve huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- for example, the 83 percent cut by 2050 from 2005 levels included in last year's House climate change legislation. Barring major technological advances (say, low-cost &#34;carbon capture&#34; to pump CO2 into the ground) or an implausibly massive shift to nuclear power, this simply won't happen. It's a pipe dream. In the EIA's &#34;reference case&#34; projection, CO2 emissions in 2035 are 8.7 percent higher than in 2008.Rather than admit the obvious, Obama implies that other countries are disproving it. &#34;Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America,&#34; he said in his address. If China can do it, so can we! Well, whatever China's accomplishing on wind and solar, it's a sideshow. In 2008, fossil fuels met 87 percent of its energy needs, reports the International Energy Agency. Coal alone accounted for 66 percent. China represents about half of the world's hard coal consumption. Usage grew 10.7 percent annually from 2000 to 2008.The outlines of a pragmatic energy policy are clear. A gradually increasing tax on oil or carbon would nudge people toward more energy-efficient products, including cars. Any tax should be part of a budget program that includes major spending cuts. This is a better approach than the confusing cap-and-trade proposals -- embraced by the House and the administration -- that would inevitably be riddled with exceptions and preferences. Finally, research and development should search for cheaper, cleaner energy sources.Meanwhile, it's imperative to tap domestic oil and natural gas. This creates jobs and limits our dependence on insecure imports. Drilling advances have opened vast reserves of natural gas trapped in shale. Human error and corner-cutting by BP seem the main causes of the spill. Given the industry's previously strong safety record, Obama's six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling isn't justified and should be shortened. It's not industry lobbyists who sustain fossil fuels but the reality that they're economically and socially necessary. A candid president would have said so.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>As demand grows for locally raised meat, farmers turn to mobile slaughterhouses</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6957</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6957</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Today, four corporations slaughter 80 percent of the cattle in the United States. Consumers are increasingly demanding grass-fed beef, pork and lamb raised on local pastures by farmers who can vouch for the animals' diet and treatment. That's difficult for a small farmer raising animals in pastures, where weather and other variables can affect their growth and readiness for slaughter.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Lyndsey LaytonWhen Kathryn Thomas wanted to turn her sheep into lamb chops, the federal government required her to haul them across Puget Sound on a ferry and then drive three hours to reach a suitable slaughterhouse.Not anymore. These days, the slaughterhouse -- and the feds -- come to her.A 53-foot tractor-trailer rattles up to her farm on Lopez Island, the rear doors open and the sheep are led inside, where the butcher and federal meat inspector are waiting. When the job is done, the team heads out to the next farm.The slaughtermobile -- a stainless steel industrial facility on wheels -- is catching on across the country, filling a desperate need in a burgeoning movement to bring people closer to their food. It is also perhaps one of the most visible symbols of a subtle transformation at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, long criticized for promoting big agribusiness.Under the Obama administration and the 2008 farm bill passed by Congress, the USDA is shifting attention to small and mid-size farms, encouraging organic and sustainable agriculture, and investing in projects to bring locally grown meat and produce to consumers.&#34;There is unbelievable consumer interest in local agriculture that we haven't seen in decades,&#34; said Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. She is overseeing the agency's &#34;Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food&#34; program, designed to revive the processing, marketing and distribution networks that once made small farming viable but disintegrated in the last 30 years as U.S. agriculture went through a dramatic consolidation.Along with mid-size and small farms, the number of federally inspected slaughterhouses has been dropping, from 1,627 in 1980 to 1,051 in 2010, according to the USDA. Today, four corporations slaughter 80 percent of the cattle in the United States. In Wyoming, for example, where cattle ranching is so iconic that license plates carry an image of a cowboy, there is no longer a single slaughterhouse inspected by either the federal or state government. Instead, ranchers ship cattle across state lines to megaprocessors, where cows are usually fattened on grain and fed antibiotics before they are slaughtered in facilities that process up to 3,000 animals a day.&#34;There are farming operations that are really big and do huge volumes of food and that's part of American agriculture and that's good,&#34; Merrigan said. &#34;But there are a lot of people who want to do alternative markets, and we want to find a way to help them find a living and stay in rural America and help those towns and villages thrive. This really is a rural development strategy.&#34;The agency is promoting small meat producers in part by funding and approving more mobile slaughter units, staffing each one with a federal inspector, educating farmers and USDA employees about the units, and setting clear guidelines for farmers who want to build one. In December, the department set up a toll-free help line dedicated to small producers.A cultural shiftMost people in this country are not likely to eat meat processed in a mobile slaughterhouse, but the USDA's promotion of the units marks a significant cultural shift at the agency, especially since Earl Butz, the agriculture secretary from 1971 to 1976, famously admonished farmers to &#34;get big or get out.&#34;The change coincides with a backlash against factory farms, fueled by concerns about animal welfare, impact on the environment and quality and safety of meat. Consumers are increasingly demanding grass-fed beef, pork and lamb raised on local pastures by farmers who can vouch for the animals' diet and treatment. The USDA estimates that the market for locally grown food will be about $7 billion by 2012, up steeply from $4 billion in 2002.But there is a bottleneck in the system: a lack of slaughterhouses that can work with small farmers. Most big slaughterhouses require farmers to book appointments far in advance, sometimes as long as 18 months. That's difficult for a small farmer raising animals in pastures, where weather and other variables can affect their growth and readiness for slaughter. But without a federal or state inspection seal, or a special exemption allowed by some states, meat cannot be sold.The USDA approved the first mobile slaughter unit for Lopez Island in 2002 and has certified eight others across the country for large animals -- cattle, sheep and pigs. A group of about 20 farmers in Western Maryland will meet with the USDA later this month to discuss bringing a mobile slaughterhouse to Washington, Carroll and Frederick counties.&#34;People want to buy their stuff locally and they want to buy it from you instead of the counter at Safeway or Food Lion or from some anonymous slaughterhouse that stuffed it full of antibiotics so it wouldn't get sick,&#34; said Dick Stoner, who raises black angus cattle on a farm in Sharpsburg, Md., near the Antietam Civil War battlefield.Like neighboring farmers, Stoner sells some cattle to bulk slaughterhouses in the West. He has been consumed with the idea of a slaughtermobile ever since he heard Merrigan give a talk six months ago. &#34;We've got all these farms within an hour and a half. All we have to do is connect the buyers in the city with these farms and figure out a way to get the meat to them.&#34;At roughly $250,000, a basic slaughtermobile costs about one-fourth of a permanent facility and is likely to face less opposition from the community. &#34;No one wants to live next to a slaughterhouse,&#34; Stoner said. &#34;So getting a new one built, even on a farm, is almost out of the question.&#34;Bruce Dunlop, an engineer and farmer on Lopez Island who designed the mobile slaughter unit there, has gotten so many inquiries from other farmers that he launched a side business and has built nine others. &#34;I get calls and e-mails every week, from farmers all over the world,&#34; Dunlop said.'Just one strategy'Farmers point out that there are still significant barriers. Slaughtermobiles have to meet the same federal sanitary standards as permanent slaughterhouses, which is costly, and they come with particular challenges, such as a need for potable water and a way to dispose of animal waste. Farmers must form cooperatives to purchase and operate the units. And once the animal is slaughtered, the carcass still has to be brought to a packing house for cutting and wrapping before the meat can be sold.&#34;Mobile slaughter units are a bit of a quick fix,&#34; said Joe Cloud, a landscape architect who joined farmer Joel Salatin -- celebrated among the &#34;locavore&#34; movement -- to buy a small slaughterhouse in the Shenandoah Valley in 2007 that was about to shut down. Their operation, T&#38;E Meats, is so busy they are turning away business.&#34;You still need to cut up the meat, you need saws, grinders, stuffers, vacuum packers, smokehouses, curing areas, drying units and all of these things that take a lot of space,&#34; Cloud said. &#34;I just don't see how we're going to rebuild the local community-based system using mobile units.&#34;Merrigan agrees. &#34;This is just one strategy,&#34; she said.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Tax breaks have share of critics, but nothing changes in Washington</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6952</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Dallas Morning News</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Dallas Morning News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6952</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[But that won't work if we don't extend it this year."  Many of the most expensive tax breaks are permanent. But the fact is a lot of them are on autopilot."  Tax experts often cite tax breaks for health care and energy production as other examples of inefficient tax subsidies. The legislation that would extend some tax breaks also directs the Joint Committee on Taxation to analyze whether each tax break has fulfilled its purpose.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Dave Michaels Jun. 20, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- WASHINGTON -- Congressional auditors and some senior lawmakers say many tax breaks aren't doing their job and should be overhauled. Yet most years, when Congress has a chance to review the provisions, it extends them instead.  One example: the research tax credit, which auditors say provides a windfall to big companies.  The credit is intended to stimulate research and development spending by U.S. companies. Instead, the Government Accountability Office found last year that the $5.6 billion credit rewards companies for research they would have done without the incentive.  That senior lawmakers acknowledge the research tax credit is flawed -- yet still plan to extend it -- illustrates the difficulty of reforming tax breaks that have become a favored way to subsidize business and encourage other investments, such as home purchases.  "The business community says they need it. They say it creates jobs," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "Where there are problems with it, we are going to take a hard look at it. But that won't work if we don't extend it this year."  Many of the most expensive tax breaks are permanent. But several dozen, including the research credit, must be reauthorized for a year or several years at a time.  Some tax experts think Congress should make most tax breaks temporary, so lawmakers would at least be forced to grapple with their cost. But others are skeptical, saying Congress has not shown itself willing to challenge the lobbying forces that demand annual renewal.  "Once it's in the [tax] code, it just sails on," said Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. "Every one has a champion within Congress. The members find it desirable not to criticize other members' pet [tax] expenditures, so their pet expenditures are not criticized by the other fellow."  Lawmakers are weighing the extension of about 50 expiring tax breaks, including the research credit. The $118 billion package, which includes an extension of unemployment insurance and other non-tax items, has been stuck in the Senate because of objections that it would raise the deficit.  The research tax credit has acquired a wide base of support in Washington, where big companies including Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) , Dean Foods (NYSE:DF)  and Texas Instruments (NYSE:TXN)  champion its renewal. In fact, large corporations have dominated its use. In 2005, more than half of the $6 billion in net credit went to corporations with receipts greater than $1 billion, according to the GAO report.  Issued in November, the GAO report found that most companies claiming the credit "received substantial windfalls." The audit said that research due to the credit "represent[s] less than 15 percent of the total research spending of these claimants."  The GAO blamed the credit's design for causing the windfall. Companies earn the credit for research expenses that exceed an amount set by law, but that amount is determined by spending dating to the 1980s. The GAO recommended that Congress update the calculation to consider the current year's research expenses.  "A lot of them are more flawed than the research tax credit," said Leonard Burman, a Syracuse University professor of public affairs who led the Treasury Department's office of tax analysis during the Clinton administration. "Congress obviously can review tax expenditures. They should. But the fact is a lot of them are on autopilot."  Tax experts often cite tax breaks for health care and energy production as other examples of inefficient tax subsidies. Yet efforts to reform them have mostly failed.  During debate over the new health care law, for instance, lawmakers rejected advice from health economists who wanted to impose a tax on employer-provided health insurance. Since premiums aren't taxed, companies have an incentive to provide more generous plans in lieu of raising wages, which drives up consumption of health care services -- and raises costs.  The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a high-tech think tank in Washington that supports the research credit, disagreed with the GAO report. The foundation advocates raising the value of the credit, saying it would result in 162,000 new jobs and $90 billion in economic activity. The foundation's funding comes partly from corporations that benefit from the credit.  "It does spur R&D," said Robert D. Atkinson, the foundation's president. "I just simply don't buy the [GAO's] view."  Yet even lawmakers who support the research credit say fiscal worries may soon prompt a re-evaluation of tax breaks. Chairmen of the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate say that tax reform is on the agenda for 2011, and that concern over federal deficits is driving the discussion.  Even before then, some lawmakers are prodding colleagues to take another look at tax breaks. The legislation that would extend some tax breaks also directs the Joint Committee on Taxation to analyze whether each tax break has fulfilled its purpose. The provision was inserted by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin.  "The GAO report I found to be alarming, and should be a reason for Congress to give much more attention to whether we are getting the R&D we need," Doggett said. Newstex ID: KRTB-0046-46242514 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Wonkbook: Dems divided on climate bill; jobs bill fails again; Pelosi pulls DISCLOSURE Act</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6948</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6948</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Thursday was not a great day for Democratic congressional leadership: A Senate Democratic caucus meeting ended without consensus on a climate bill; the GOP, helped by Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, successfully filibustered the weakened jobs bill; and following criticism of the NRA's exemption from its requirements, Nancy Pelosi has pulled today's vote on the DISCLOSURE Act.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ezra KleinThursday was not a great day for Democratic congressional leadership: A Senate Democratic caucus meeting ended without consensus on a climate bill; the GOP, helped by Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, successfully filibustered the weakened jobs bill; and following criticism of the NRA's exemption from its requirements, Nancy Pelosi has pulled today's vote on the DISCLOSURE Act. Ouch.Well, they can take comfort in the fact that it's Friday. Welcome to Wonkbook.Top StoriesNo consensus came out of a Senate Democrats meeting on climate legislation, reports Darren Samuelsohn: &#34;Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada dedicated an hourlong session to a 'full, frank discussion' of three competing proposals for overhauling the nation&#8217;s energy policies and trimming greenhouse gas emissions. But senators spoke for so long that they had to bump back a more detailed question-and-answer session for another meeting that&#8217;s tentatively scheduled for next week.&#34;Senate liberals are threatening to bolt on an energy bill that doesn't price carbon, reports Alexander Bolton: &#34;Some of the strongest critics of offshore drilling within the Democratic Conference now warn they may not vote for it without a measure to require industry to pay for carbon pollution. 'It&#8217;s hard to imagine that I would support it,' said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), after Democrats met Thursday to discuss energy legislation.&#8230;[Sen. Sheldon] Whitehouse said 'it would be very challenging' to vote for an energy bill that did not take a significant step to limit carbon emissions.&#8230;'We obviously don&#8217;t have comprehensive energy reform unless we address the pollution that comes from carbon,' said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).&#34;Want Wonkbook delivered to your e-mail or mobile device every morning? Subscribe!Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and every Republican in the Senate voted to filibuster the jobs bill, reports Lori Montgomery: &#34;Democrats believed they had secured the votes of at least two Republicans: Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.). But any deal unraveled during a long day of talks Thursday, leaving Democrats frustrated and perplexed. 'We thought we had enough votes to pass this,' Reid told reporters, adding that Lieberman had been prepared to come on board. He and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said they would regroup Friday. But aides said the path forward would not become clear until next week at the earliest.&#34;Nancy Pelosi has pulled today's scheduled vote on the DISCLOSURE Act after complaints from Blue Dogs and the Congressional Black Caucus, reports John Bresnahan: &#34;The Blue Dogs are concerned that opposition from the Chamber, National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Realtors and other business groups will damage their reelection prospects in the fall. The CBC, on the other hand, was unhappy about an exemption to the bill granted to the National Rifle Association agreed to by Van Hollen. While the exemption was later extended to other groups, the CBC remained concerned about the bill&#8217;s potential impact on the NAACP and other progressive groups.&#34;&#34;You disappoint me, Buzz&#34; interlude: A Wire/Toy Story mashup.Still to come: In economic news, the crisis in Europe is oushing down prices in the US; in energy news, Rep. Joe Barton's ranking membership on the energy committee is in danger after he apologized to BP; in the domestic policy arena, the federal government has responded to state lawsuits on health care reform; and in FinReg, New York banking allies are planning an 11th-hour lobbying push to weaken the bill.EconomyThe crisis in Europe has caused a dip in US prices, reports Neil Irwin: &#34;A silver lining of the European debt crisis is starting to emerge: falling prices in the United States. Consumer prices fell 0.2 percent in May, the Labor Department said Thursday. The department said Wednesday that wholesale prices fell 0.3 percent. Both were driven by a dip in global prices for oil and other commodities caused by investor concern that, given the troubles in Greece and other European nations, the global recovery could slow.&#34;But it could also widen the trade deficit: http://bit.ly/aluRr8The House has passed $30 billion in capital loans to small businesses, reports Martin Vaughn: &#34;Banks with total assets of less than $10 billion would be eligible to receive capital investments from the fund, under the bill from House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.). Banks with higher rates of lending to small businesses and farms would qualify to have interest rates lowered on those capital infusions. The bill would also provide $1 billion, to be matched by private capital, for a new equity financing program for start-ups. That fund will be overseen by the Small Business Administration.&#34;House-Senate tensions are rising as a result of the jobs bill fight: http://bit.ly/digpd3Democrats defeated Republicans' alternative jobs proposal, report Corey Boles and Martin Vaughan: &#34;The Republican measure would have stripped out $24 billion in fiscal aid to state governments and introduced broad budget cuts to most federal agencies in order to fully offset the cost of the legislation. Like the Democratic version of the bill, it would renew a popular series of tax cuts aimed at businesses and individuals, continue federal jobless benefits and avert pending reductions in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.&#34;Jobless claims are sharply up: http://bit.ly/ddn36pAlan Greenspan argues that low interest rates hide the urgency of the debt crisis: &#34;I believe the fears of budget contraction inducing a renewed decline of economic activity are misplaced. The current spending momentum is so pressing that it is highly unlikely that any politically feasible fiscal constraint will unleash new deflationary forces. I do not believe that our lawmakers or others are aware of the degree of impairment of our fiscal brakes. If we contained the amount of issuance of Treasury securities, pressures on private capital markets would be eased.&#34;Jersey rock interlude: The Gaslight Anthem and Bruce Springsteen play &#34;The '59 Sound&#34;.EnergyGOP leadership threatened to remove Rep. Joe Barton from his ranking membership if he did not retract his apology to BP, reports Paul Kane: &#34;GOP leadership aides, who asked not to be identified in order to speak candidly, said that House GOP leaders gave Barton an ultimatum -- retract the BP apology or lose his position as ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They said he will now retain that position unless he causes further controversy.&#34;House Republicans have rejected unlimited liability for BP for the fourth time, reports Meredith Shiner: Democrats attempted Thursday to create unlimited liability for oil companies, and for the fourth time since the Gulf crisis began, Republicans objected. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) asked for a voice vote to pass a bill that would hold oil companies accountable for all damages they create, a significant leap from the $75 million cap set by current law. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, rejected the request.&#34;The liability cap helped cause the Gulf spill, writes Daniel Indiviglio. &#34;If a liability cap had never been put in place, BP and other oil companies would have behaved differently. Since they thought their liability was limited, oil companies participated in a relatively small insurance fund to cover potential damages. This is where the problem began. Without a net to catch the oil companies if they fell, BP probably would have been more careful.&#34;David Brooks believes the clean-up effort is suffering from too little local control: http://nyti.ms/9jTeB2BP faces little to no risk of bankruptcy, report Bernard Condon and Michael Liedtke: &#34;BP posted $17 billion in profit from its vast operations around the globe last year, compared with $5.7 billion for Apple and $6.5 billion for Google. More important, in the past three years the company generated $91 billion in cash flow from operations. It's not highly leveraged with debt, as banks were during the financial crisis. And it has 18 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, twice what the U.S. consumes every year.&#34;British comedy interlude: Some math problems.Domestic PolicyThe federal government has responded to state attorneys general's lawsuit on health care reform, report Janet Adamy and Evan Perez: &#34;The department's filing noted that virtually everyone needs medical care at some point. Existing laws guarantee a right to emergency care, and the new law requires insurance companies to allow people to buy insurance after they get sick. Congress was entitled to pass a law punishing people who go without coverage because their decision could impose future costs on the nationwide health system, the filing said. The law 'imposes a tax on the choice of a method to finance the future costs of one's health care,' it said.&#34;Numerous National Relations Labor Board decisions have been invalidated by the Supreme Court, report Peter Whoriskey and Sonja Ryst: &#34;Hundreds of recent federal rulings in disputes between unions and employers could be reopened after the Supreme Court said on Thursday that it was illegal for the National Labor Relations Board to decide the cases with only two sitting members. The case before the court turns on an attempt by the NLRB to operate with only two of its five seats filled because of gridlock over presidential nominees, and it highlights the way political divisions in Congress interfere with basic government functions.&#34;The FCC's Internet regulation is set to begin: http://politi.co/9ocoHAA pharmaceutical industry crackdown could pay for emergency education funds, reports David Rogers: &#34;Looking for savings to avert threatened layoffs this fall, the White House and Democrats are again eyeing proposals to crack down on licensing agreements in which pharmaceutical companies reward competitors that agree to slow the introduction of often cheaper generic drugs.&#8230;Both administration and House Democratic officials told POLITICO that it&#8217;s being actively discussed now in a new effort to come up with $10 billion in spending cuts and savings to offset emergency assistance to local school boards this summer.&#34;Budget concerns in general have paralyzed the Senate: http://politi.co/9clnVDClassic Python interlude: The Role of the Idiot in Rural Society.FinRegNew York bank supporters are mounting a last-minute campaign against FinReg, reports Ben White: &#34;A flurry of opposition from New York City-area politicians and House moderates is aimed at blunting tough new financial regulations - an 11th-hour lobbying blitz that could shift momentum once again in the Wall Street reform fight. Three letters - from the New Democrat Coalition, the New York delegation and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - stake out a view that&#8217;s been politically risky amid the populist anger over Wall Street: don&#8217;t be too tough on the banks.&#34;Mortgage brokers want to use FinReg to get laxer appraisal rules: http://bit.ly/a4bymnFinReg conferees have agreed to a comprehensive audit of the Fed, reports Brady Dennis: &#34;The compromise expands on language from the Senate bill that would grant the GAO authority to audit the Fed's massive emergency lending programs and compel the agency to release details about the firms that benefited from those programs during the crisis. The new language broadens those audits to include the Fed's discount window and its purchases and sales of government securities, requiring the central bank to disclose details about such transactions within two years after they occur.&#34;The Fed's power will stay largely intact after FinReg: http://bit.ly/cBCokGDespite Eric Holder's promises to prosecute Wall Street executives, white collar cases lag, reports Jerry Markon: &#34;Nearly 1 1/2 years into Obama's tenure, despite several cases against mortgage companies whose lending practices contributed to the crisis, the administration has not brought any charges against the big Wall Street banks that took those loans, converted them into toxic securities and pumped them into the world's financial markets. Law enforcement sources say no such charges are imminent.&#34;The Justice Department is targeting mortgage frauds: http://bit.ly/cpa7lERecipe interlude: Brazil is playing Cote D'Ivoire this Sunday. You should make Feijoada.Closing credits: Wonkbook compiled with the help of Dylan Matthews and Mike Shepard.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Sen. Brown says he won&#8217;t back carbon fees</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6933</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Boston Globe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[In The Spotlight]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Boston Globe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6933</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Democrats feared that Brown would prevent them from summoning the 60 votes required to break GOP filibusters. In April, Brown delivered a crucial vote to advance a bill extending unemployment benefits. Brown was the deciding vote on the Senate's version of revising financial regulations.Brown has repeatedly has said he will not vote for an unemployment extension bill that adds to the deficit.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[By Susan Milligan Jun. 17, 2010 (The Boston Globe delivered by Newstex) -- WASHINGTON  -  Senator Scott Brown, a freshman Republican from Massachusetts who has sided with Democrats on several key votes, said after meeting briefly with President Obama yesterday that he  will not back any climate-change  measure that includes a fee on carbon emissions, but he left open the possibility of supporting "a comprehensive energy plan.'' Brown was invited for a personal session with the president in the Oval Office, a gesture generally used when a commander in chief wants to thank someone or solicit legislative support. While Brown described the meeting as friendly, he  voiced strong reservations about some of the key proposals on Capitol Hill to deal with climate change and energy independence.``I basically told him I'm not in favor of, nor could I support, a national energy tax or cap-and-trade proposal,'' Brown told reporters at the Capitol after racing out of  the White House  to go back to the Senate for votes. "But I am very excited about working with him in a bipartisan manner to come up with a comprehensive energy plan to address a whole host of issues,'' Brown said.In his first prime-time Oval Office address to the nation Tuesday night on the BP (NYSE:BP)  oil  disaster, Obama  escalated his quest for a broad energy plan. Obama won a commitment yesterday from BP officials to put $20 billion in an escrow account to compensate victims of the Gulf  Coast spill, but he is also pressuring Congress to move ahead on a bill  he says will reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and a chief author of a major climate change package, is lobbying his colleagues for support, but said he does not yet have the 60 votes needed to overcome an expected filibuster. Kerry has rejected critics' suggestions that his bill is an energy tax. Obama talked generally to Brown about the climate issue, but did not specifically ask for his vote on the Kerry bill, Brown's office said.The president also asked Brown to outline his general concerns. Brown said he responded by telling Obama he wants to focus on jobs.Brown yesterday introduced legislation, written with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would require oil companies to have a peer-reviewed plan to respond to a significant leak.  Companies are required now to have a leak prevention plan, but  law does not mandate a backup strategy to stop a serious spill, according to Brown's and Feinstein's offices.The bill  - which Brown said caught Obama's interest during their 15-minute meeting  - also would use existing Department of Energy funds to assemble a team of  specialists from the private sector and National Academy of Sciences  to stop the  ongoing Gulf disaster.Brown has been criticized by environmentalists, most recently for  supporting a  Senate resolution this month that  sought to express disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to people and the environment. The resolution failed, but Brown's vote for it is   "not a good sign. That's exhibit A that he's in the pocket of Republican leadership,'' said David DiMartino, whose company, Blue Line Strategic Communications, represents environmental groups. But "we think he's gettable,'' DiMartino said, on some energy and environmental legislation.Brown came to Washington amid suggestions that he would supply the crucial vote against overhauling the Democratic proposal to overhaul health care. Democrats feared that Brown would prevent them from summoning the 60 votes required to break GOP filibusters. But Democrats passed the health care bill under legislative maneuvers that precluded Brown's involvement.Brown voted, along with three fellow GOP senators, to break a February filibuster on a Democrat-sponsored, $15 billion jobs bill. In April, Brown delivered a  crucial vote to advance a bill extending unemployment benefits. Brown was the deciding vote on the Senate's version of revising financial regulations.Brown has repeatedly has said he will not vote for an unemployment extension bill that adds to the deficit. Yesterday, he voted against a $140 billion bill to extend jobless benefits and provide aid to states. That measure is expected to come up again in a revised form later this week.Susan Milligan can be reached at milligan@globe.com Newstex ID: BGL-1035-46154076 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Farm lobby must step aside, because the Chesapeake Bay can wait no longer</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6931</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6931</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Robert McCartneyHere are the interest groups that would benefit from legislation before Congress to really, finally clean up the Chesapeake Bay: Boaters. Elijah Cummings, are the leading sponsors of the similar bills. It says the legislation is technically unfeasible, would discourage development and raise farmers' costs.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Robert McCartneyHere are the interest groups that would benefit from legislation before Congress to really, finally clean up the Chesapeake Bay: Boaters. Fishermen. Swimmers. People who live on the shoreline. People who like to visit the bay. People who eat fish, crabs and oysters that come from the bay.Here's the main interest group fighting the bill: farmers.Guess which side looks likely to win?The potent national farm lobby is poised to block a pair of bills that would set a firm deadline of 2025 for cutting the flow of pollutants by enough to restore the bay's health, according to both supporters and opponents of the measures.Two Maryland Democrats, Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. Elijah Cummings, are the leading sponsors of the similar bills. They would give federal and state governments genuine authority for the first time over all kinds of polluters -- including farmers -- in the six-state Chesapeake watershed.That would be a major advance, not just for our region but also the rest of the country. For nearly four decades, the farming industry has succeeded in preventing the federal government from extending mandatory measures to stop it from polluting the nation's water. Many other major polluters, such as sewage treatment plants and factories, succumbed to such regulation long ago.To their credit, the nation's farmers have cut back on pollution to a significant degree through voluntary steps encouraged by government subsidies. It hasn't been enough, though. Farm runoff is the largest single source of pollution in the Chesapeake.Some farmers &#34;are doing the right thing, helping to preserve the bay for future generations, but there are a lot of farmers who haven't done that,&#34; Cardin said. &#34;What's fair about this is all farmers [would] have to meet certain standards.&#34;The American Farm Bureau doesn't see it that way. It says the legislation is technically unfeasible, would discourage development and raise farmers' costs. The bureau spent $5 million on lobbying last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.&#34;It's going to do nothing except cut into profits of agriculture. The way that Mr. Cardin's bill goes about doing things could pretty much squeeze farmers to the point where they would have to go out of business,&#34; said Don Parrish, the bureau's senior director of regulatory relations.Cardin and others in his camp acknowledge that farmers need some special treatment. It's a lot harder to measure and control runoff of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from hundreds of fields than from an individual waste-water facility or industrial plant. The bill includes grants for technical assistance to agriculture and strengthens a pollution trading system to help farmers manage the new requirements.With help like that to keep them in business, I think farmers should be expected to do their full share of what's necessary to clean up the bay. Past efforts to restore the Chesapeake have failed repeatedly, even thought it's well known what steps are needed. In particular, farmers must plant cover crops in the winter to absorb excess nutrients, convert farmland to buffer strips along stream banks and shorelines, and put manure piles on slabs or in sheds.Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is already pushing such actions. But legislation is needed to be sure the EPA has authority to require them. A law also would ensure continued progress if a future administration is less sympathetic to the cause.Farmers' objections today are reminiscent of the ones made by industrial polluters who (unsuccessfully) fought the 1972 Clean Water Act.&#34;These are the same arguments that were made by industry going up to the 1970s: 'We wouldn't be able to do it. It's too expensive.' And of course we were able to achieve those goals&#34; in reducing pollution, said George Hawkins, general manager of D.C. Water (hitherto known as WASA).Hawkins, a former EPA lawyer who teaches environmental law at Princeton, supports the Cardin-Cummings approach. He said it was fair to ask more of agriculture in part because pressure to save the bay has fallen disproportionately on urban and inner suburban residents who've had to pay to upgrade sewage facilities.&#34;I don't believe farmers have faced any more difficult economic circumstances than lower income residents of the District of Columbia, Baltimore or Philadelphia, who are paying for it through higher water rates,&#34; Hawkins said.Cardin's bill is scheduled to go before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee next week, and the panel is expected to approve it. However, the bill faces an uphill battle in the full Senate.The farm lobby thinks Cardin and company are in too much of a hurry.&#34;We've had an effect on the Chesapeake Bay for 400 years. The Clean Water Act has been in place for 30 years. We're not gong to change things back, or make any dramatic effect, in 10 to 15 years,&#34; said Wilmer Stoneman, associate director of governmental relations for the Virginia Farm Bureau.That's shortsighted. We've known for a generation what needs to be done. Let's do it right, and now.I discuss local issues at 8:51 a.m. Friday on WAMU (88.5 FM).mccartneyr@washpost.com]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Agricultural census shows number of farms - especially small ones - rising</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6934</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Dallas Morning News</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Dallas Morning News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6934</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[It offers a glimpse into the state of American farming. Loganberries?  Do you raise emus? Ostriches?  Like the U.S. Census, agriculture census organizers make a big push to get the word out about the farm count.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Eric Aasen Jun. 17, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- It's census time, so people are getting counted, of course.  But don't forget about the cows, pigs, chickens and other farm animals. Or the corn, wheat and cotton.  They get counted, too.  Every five years, the Census of Agriculture counts farms and ranches across the country, as well as what's raised and grown on the land. It offers a glimpse into the state of American farming. The next one happens in 2012.  The 2007 census reported that the number of farms is growing, both nationwide and in North Texas.  Small farms are helping to fuel the growth, census officials said. More than a third of the country's farms are classified as residential or lifestyle farms.  Dallas County reported a 3 percent jump, while Tarrant County saw a 2 percent increase. Collin County saw a 5 percent bump, while Denton County farms climbed 9 percent.  But it doesn't take much to be a farm in the government's eyes. The census defines a farm as a place where at least $1,000 in agricultural products are produced or sold annually.  The last census showed a 4 percent increase in the number of farms nationwide. Across Texas, farms were up 8 percent.  While the human census is getting the names and races of people in a household, the farm census has a different focus:  How much did you spend in fertilizer, lime and soil conditioners?  Do you grow organic products?  What about dewberries? Currants? Loganberries?  Do you raise emus? Pigeons? Ostriches?  Like the U.S. Census, agriculture census organizers make a big push to get the word out about the farm count. Forms are mailed out to farmers and ranchers. Those who don't respond receive follow-up mailings, phone calls or visits from census workers.  Farm organizations, businesses and local, state and federal governments use the data to evaluate farm policy, develop ways to improve agricultural production and allocate funding for farm programs.  "The more accurate the information, the better it is for everybody involved, so everybody knows what exactly we have and what our needs are," said Bob Garino, deputy director of the Texas field office for the National Agricultural Statistics Service, which conducts the census.  The fact that small farms are blossoming nationwide doesn't surprise Todd Moore, who owns Lavon Farms in Plano, the last remaining dairy in Collin County.  "You are starting to see more community gardening set-ups and people becoming small artisans, whether it's bread or grapes for wine," Moore said. "We're in the middle of a food revolution. People are starting to read labels, and they're starting to realize they can't pronounce what's on a label. ... People want to know where their food comes from."  The agriculture census started in 1840 and was taken as part of the U.S. Census through 1950.  Despite their best efforts, both census projects -- human and farm -- can't track down everyone.  But they do their best to track down folks like William Boyce, an Ellis County farmer who has a grove of pecan trees.  Harvest time is between October and December, but the rest of the year is spent spraying trees to keep the bugs away and monitoring the grove to keep the crows at bay.  Boyce, who lives near Bristol, calls farm life satisfying.  But it comes at a price.  "It keeps one very busy." Newstex ID: KRTB-0046-46153979 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>In address to nation, Obama urges action on clean energy bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6929</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6929</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[He traveled by helicopter, ferry and motorcade along a seaside highway bordering white-sand beaches, booms floating offshore along much of the route. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Scott Wilson and Anne E. KornblutPresident Obama urged the nation Tuesday to rally behind legislation that would begin changing the way the country consumes and generates energy, saying the expanding oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is &#34;the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.&#34;In his first Oval Office address, Obama compared the need to end the country's &#34;addiction to fossil fuels&#34; to its emergency preparations for World War II and the mission to the moon. Hours after the government sharply increased its estimate of how much oil is flowing into the gulf, the president warned that risks will continue to rise because &#34;we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.&#34; He called for fast Senate action on an energy bill that has already passed the House.&#34;There are costs associated with this transition, and some believe we can't afford those costs right now,&#34; Obama said. &#34;I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security and our environment are far greater.&#34;Even before the president addressed a prime-time television audience, congressional Republican leaders warned him not to use what he described as &#34;the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced&#34; to further his political agenda. But beyond the urgency of his appeal, his remarks were largely an 18-minute compilation of what he has said about the spill over the past several weeks.His audience this time extended well beyond the Gulf Coast, where he just concluded a two-day visit, to an electorate that mostly disapproves of the way he is handling the crisis.The fact that Obama himself chose to deliver his message from the Oval Office underscored the extent of the disaster, both in terms of its environmental and economic impact on the gulf region and the political ramifications it holds in a midterm election year. The spill, which began April 20, has challenged the administration's cultivated image of competence and Obama's skill in using the right tone to discuss a widening environmental catastrophe that is in many ways out of his control.The government released new figures Tuesday showing that far more oil is flowing from the seafloor than believed as recently as last week. The Flow Rate Technical Group said as much as 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons) of oil a day is escaping from the damaged well, a 50 percent increase from the last estimate.BP announced plans earlier this week to capture 53,000 barrels (2.2 million gallons) of oil a day by the end of June. But the new figure highlights the extent of the challenge of plugging the leak, and the threat facing an increasingly frustrated and fearful Gulf Coast as the summer tourist season begins.Obama is scheduled to meet Wednesday morning with BP executives to discuss response efforts and the establishment of escrow accounts to compensate those who the president said have been &#34;harmed as a result of his company's recklessness.&#34;He also announced the appointment of Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department official, to head the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible for regulating offshore drilling.Senior administration officials said Obama's address -- which they described as coming at an &#34;inflection point&#34; in the crisis -- will help adjust the nation's focus from the immediate spill to a longer-term strategy for restoring the gulf region and changing the way the country uses energy. Obama said he has assigned Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, to draw up a long-term strategy for the gulf &#34;as soon as possible.&#34;Privately, one senior official said the speech was a direct effort to &#34;wipe the slate clean,&#34; adding that the goal now is to &#34;shift the conversation to something more future-oriented.&#34;But Obama spoke only in general, often lofty terms about the need for Congress to pass energy reform legislation this year, a point he has made at least twice in the past month. He did not call for a price to be placed on carbon, even though one senior administration official said he thinks that is the most effective way to reduce U.S. energy consumption and protect against climate change.A presidential push for energy reform could energize a dispirited Democratic base heading into the fall campaign season. Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama on a range of issues -- including the still-stumbling economy and his escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- and the president's top advisers consider energy and the environment issues where he could work to restore his standing. But administration officials doubt the energy bill has enough support to pass in the Senate.&#34;The votes don't exist now,&#34; one senior White House official said. &#34;But he is going to press for it.&#34;The Oval Office address was Obama's most pointed attempt since the spill began to explain how the crisis should be leveraged on behalf of long-term reform, and it could well be his last chance to do so this year on a national scale. He said he will listen to ideas from all parties, adding that &#34;the one approach I will not accept is inaction.&#34;Until his national address, the president focused his attention mostly on the gulf itself, and he spoke hours after returning from his visit to Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle.On his fourth and most extensive trip to the region, Obama toured staging areas being used in the response and met with local officials and business owners worried about the enormous slick offshore. He traveled by helicopter, ferry and motorcade along a seaside highway bordering white-sand beaches, booms floating offshore along much of the route. He spoke hopefully to many of the people he met, delivering a variety of pep talks while also warning that the Gulf Coast faces &#34;painful&#34; times ahead.&#34;The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight,&#34; Obama said. &#34;Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.&#34;Republicans seized on the president's approach as further evidence of what they say is his over-reliance on the government to solve the nation's biggest challenges.In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said that &#34;the White House may view this oil spill as an opportunity to push its agenda in Washington, but Americans are more concerned about what it plans to do to solve the crisis at hand.&#34;]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>FBACT Newswatch: Murkowski Resolution, Clean Air Act and Crop Insurance</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6913</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Farm Bureau Newsroom</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Add new tag]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Farm Bureau Newsroom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6913</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[AFBF Disappointed in Failure of Murkowski Resolution
 
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman expressed disappointment with the Senate’s refusal Thursday to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases by failing to approve S.J. Res. 26, known as the Murkowski resolution. “This was one of the most important votes in the Senate this [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[AFBF Disappointed in Failure of Murkowski Resolution
 
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman expressed disappointment with the Senate’s refusal Thursday to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases by failing to approve S.J. Res. 26, known as the Murkowski resolution. “This was one of the most important votes in the Senate this year affecting U.S. agriculture,” Stallman said.   
 
“Additional EPA regulation for farmers will likely mean higher food costs for consumers because of higher input and energy costs to grow our food and result in negative economic impacts on the agriculture sector,” Stallman said.
 
“Importantly, this vote also brought into question who should decide our nation’s energy policy—elected lawmakers or a regulatory agency.  It is regrettable the Senate answered this question as it did. The vote against S.J. Res. 26 allows EPA to embark on the ambitious and unprecedented regulation of the American economy without congressional input,” the AFBF president emphasized.
 
The final vote was 47 in favor and 53 against. All Republican senators voted yes, while Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia joined the Republicans in voting yes.
 
EPA Clean Water Act Permit Costly to Farmers and Ranchers
 
EPA is proposing a new Clean Water Act permit for pesticide use near waterways that could lead to problems for farmers and ranchers.
 
“There are four categories that it’s going to apply to,” said Tyler Wegmeyer, AFBF regulatory specialist. “Mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal control and forest canopy pest control. You don’t hear farmers mentioned in that.  However, we believe that farmers will be impacted.”
 
Wegmeyer said the new regulation is expected to add to the cost of production and isn’t even needed.  “Is it going to make the environment safer and protect human health better?  No, it’s not going to.  Laws are already on the books that do a good job of protecting the environment and human health. Farmers abide by it, and it’s working,” he said. 
 
USDA Crop Insurance Plan Will Save $6 Billion Over 10 Years

The Agriculture Department released the final draft of a new crop insurance plan on Thursday that is expected to save the federal government $6 billion over 10 years.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said $4 billion of the savings would go toward deficit reduction, while $2 billion would be used to expand farm risk management programs and the  Conservation Reserve Program.

“There is a growing consensus in the country and certainly in rural areas that we need to be paying attention to the deficit, and this is our effort at agriculture and USDA to do our part in deficit reduction,” Vilsack said.
]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Wonkbook: Murkowski defeated; BP to White House; Deflation concerns</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6912</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6912</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Ezra Klein
Senator Lisa Murkowski&#8217;s resolution seeking to strip the EPA of its power to regulate carbon failed 47-53 in the Senate, with six Democrats defecting to back the proposal. But though Murkowski might have lost the vote, it looks like she won the war: It&#8217;s hard to see a strong climate bill getting 60 votes [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ezra KleinSenator Lisa Murkowski's resolution seeking to strip the EPA of its power to regulate carbon failed 47-53 in the Senate, with six Democrats defecting to back the proposal. But though Murkowski might have lost the vote, it looks like she won the war: It's hard to see a strong climate bill getting 60 votes in a Senate where her bill got 47. And Reid had to make a lot of tough promises in order to beat the Murkowski bill back -- including giving a vote to Jay Rockefeller's bill to delay EPA action for two years.Meanwhile, the Obama administration has asked that BP executives meet with them in DC, the European debt crisis is sparking deflation worries in the US., and FinReg's first day of conference committee got off to a rocky start.Happy World-Cup-starts-today-day! Welcome to Wonkbook.Top StoriesSen. Lisa Murkowski's effort to strip the EPA of power over greenhouse gas emissions failed: http://bit.ly/9xS5zhBut at what cost, asks Brad Plumer: According to Greenwire, Harry Reid had to cut a few deals to prevent even more conservative Dems from voting for the resolution. One thing he promised was a vote (sometime down the road) on a bill by Jay Rockefeller that would delay all EPA regulations on industrial polluters for at least two years.Obama and Coast Guard commandant Thad Allen have called BP executives to DC, reports Anne Kornblut: &#34;In a letter to Carl-Henric Svanberg, the chairman of BP's board, Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen requested the presence of 'you and any appropriate officials' from the company at the White House on Wednesday. Allen is overseeing the Obama administration's response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He added that Obama would attend 'a portion of this meeting.'&#34;The crisis in Europe is causing concerns about deflation in the US, reports John Hilsenrath: &#34;Officials fret about deflation because it is hard to stop. Interest rates are already near zero in the U.S. and elsewhere, so policy makers can't use the traditional tool of rate cuts to spur growth and stop deflation.&#8230;In one sign of rising alertness to the threat, yields on 10-year Treasury bonds-which fall when inflation worries recede and rise when inflation worries increase-have dropped from nearly 4% in early April to about 3.3%. Though yields firmed a bit Thursday, big bond houses like Pacific Investment Management Co. have been moving into the safe-haven instrument.&#34;New Wave interlude: The Shins cover &#34;Goodbye Girl&#34; by Squeeze.Table of Contents: How big is the oil spill again? (and other energy news); businesses are hoarding record amounts of cash (and other economic news); portions of the stimulus package may be cut to pay for an emergency education funding bill (and other domestic policy news); a Congressional Oversight Panel report slams the AIG bailout (and other FinReg news).EnergyScientific estimates of the size of the oil spill range from 12,500 barrels a day to 50,000: http://bit.ly/bGYQ0BBP says it will speed up payments to those harmed by the oil spill, report Joe Stephens and Mary Pat Flaherty: &#34;In a news conference at the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, federal officials said BP acknowledged that its system of waiting until company books are closed for each month before paying claims 'will not work.' Officials said the firm promised a 'more expedited claims process' that takes into account the ability of businesses to pay expenses for an upcoming month and that shrimpers earn much of their income in May and June. There is no way to verify BP's announcement that it has paid more than 19,000 claims, totaling more than $53 million.&#34;A Marine Corps technologist wants to use the military's most powerful non-nuclear bomb to plug the oil leak: http://bit.ly/de2zvTKate Sheppard reports on Kevin Costner's testimony to Congress on oil spill cleanup: &#34;Costner seems to have developed somewhat of an obsession with oil spill clean up. He got interested in the subject in 1995, and although he says he was inspired by the Exxon Valdez spill, some have pointed out that the interest also arose right around the time he released the post-apocalypse epic Waterworld. Since then, he's spent $24 million funding Ocean Therapy Solutions, a company that has created a centrifuge device that separates oil from water.&#34;Sen. Lamar Alexander lists 10 energy policies he could accept: http://bit.ly/9RhTzOLiberals should rethink their energy messaging, writes Matt Yglesias: &#34;The drive to embrace drilling itself reflects the problematic nature of arguments about 'energy independence' or 'energy security.' Pollsters and messaging gurus tasked with thinking about climate change have long noted that the public displays a limited enthusiasm for environmental arguments and a great deal of enthusiasm for nationalism. This has resulted in an upsurge in efforts to define the climate crisis as a national-security problem. There's some truth to this idea, but it's also open to misuse of various forms.&#34;Trying to secure support for a clean-energy agenda by playing to anti-Iran sentiment, for example, practically invites the counterargument that we should be drilling more oil and mining more coal at home. The Gulf disaster reminds us that homegrown dirty energy is no better than dirty energy imported from abroad. Indeed, in many ways it's worse.&#34;Neo-cabaret interlude: Amanda Palmer does &#34;Leeds United&#34;.EconomyBusinesses are hoarding cash at record levels, reports Justin Lahart: &#34;U.S. companies are holding more cash in the bank than at any point on record, underscoring persistent worries about financial markets and about the sustainability of the economic recovery. The Federal Reserve reported Thursday that nonfinancial companies had socked away $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of the end of March, up 26% from a year earlier and the largest-ever increase in records going back to 1952. Cash made up about 7% of all company assets, including factories and financial investments, the highest level since 1963.&#34;We're facing a long-term unemployment crisis, reports Annie Lowrey: &#34;The joblessness crisis &#8212; in the average duration of unemployment, if not the absolute unemployment rate &#8212; is unprecedented in the postwar United States. Of the 15 million unemployed in America, over 7 million have been out of work for more than six months, nearly 5 million for a year and over 1 million for two years &#8212; the worst statistics since the government started keeping count in 1948. The proportion of the unemployed out of work for more than six months has doubled in the past year, to more than 46 percent. The jobseekers-to-jobs ratio, which tells how hard positions are to get, remains around 5.6 to 1.&#34;Harry Reid wants to extend the first-time homeowners' tax credit that expired at the end of April, reports Dina ElBoghdady: &#34;Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) co-authored a proposal that would allow those eligible for the tax credit to close on a home by Sept. 30 to give lenders more time to process a crush of applications.&#34;The May deficit is $135.93 billion: http://bit.ly/bcDYR6The US trade deficit is expanding, including the deficit with China, report Ian Talley and Tom Barkley: &#34;The Commerce Department said the U.S. deficit in international trade of goods and services increased 0.6% to $40.29 billion from a revised $40.05 billion the month before. Exports fell by $813 million, while higher oil prices helped to drive imports up by $1.61 billion.&#8230;The U.S. trade deficit with China expanded to $19.31 billion in April from $16.90 billion in March, adding to a trend that some economists worry could revive the international trade imbalances that many see as a major contributor to the recent financial crisis.&#34;Tim Geithner says negotiations with China have produced no promises on currency policy: http://bit.ly/aYrzEsForeign governments are turning away from fiscal stimulus, reports Neil Irwin: &#34;The specifics -- and extent -- of the pullback vary around the world. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel this week proposed 80 billion euros in spending cuts and new fees meant to reduce the budget deficit. Top British officials began laying out plans for massive budget cuts of their own this week. Japan's new prime minister, Naoto Kan, said this week that one of his top priorities will be reducing a budget shortfall; he appointed a deficit hawk as finance minister.&#34;Steve Pearlstein argues the US is finally paying for years of living beyond its means: &#34;Now the bill for that is finally coming due -- all the clever and seemingly painless ways for postponing that day of reckoning have pretty much been played out. The only question now is what form that payment is going to take. Will it be an extended period of subpar growth and high unemployment, inflation that erodes the purchasing power of our income and the value of our assets, a deflationary spiral that grinds down wages and salaries and increases our debt burden -- or, as I suspect, some combination of all three?&#34;David Brooks argues large budget cuts can lead to an economic recovery: &#34;Alberto Alesina of Harvard has surveyed the history of debt reduction. He&#8217;s found that, in many cases, large and decisive deficit reduction policies were followed by increases in growth, not recessions. Countries that reduced debt viewed the future with more confidence. The political leaders who ordered the painful cuts were often returned to office. As Alesina put it in a recent paper, 'in several episodes, spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions.'&#34;Great moments in political interviews interlude: SC Senate candidate Alvin Greene talks to the press.Domestic PolicyHouse appropriations chair David Obey wants to take funds from the stimulus package to pay for an emergency education funding bill, reports David Rogers: &#34;Crossing a line they had hoped to avoid, Democrats are actively discussing cuts from White House priorities in last year&#8217;s Recovery Act in order to come up with $10 billion to avert threatened layoffs of public school teachers next fall.&#34;More and more federal money is going to for-profit colleges and universities: http://bit.ly/cTDyVUThe NRA and AFL-CIO will likely get changes made to a campaign finance disclosure bill, reports Dan Eggen: &#34;House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) told reporters Wednesday that &#34;there are a number of very legitimate concerns&#34; raised by nonprofit groups about the legislation but said that he was confident Van Hollen would be able to work out the differences and that the House could consider the legislation as soon as next week.&#34;Jon Kyl and Jeff Sessions are attacking Elena Kagan's memos as a Supreme Court clerk, reports Taylor Rushing: &#34;Sessions said the memos demonstrate that Kagan is 'a developing lawyer who has a political bent to their legal work, pretty significantly so. &#8230; Her background is heavily in political legal advocacy more than the meat-and-potatoes discipline of serious legal work.'&#8230;'The problem with these bench memos is that they reveal, time and time again, an effort to reach a certain result in the case,' Kyl said.&#34;At least one state government is seizing the federal money going to close the Medicare donut hole: http://politi.co/b3ZnZEJersey punk interlude: Stream the new Gaslight Anthem album.FinRegThe Congressional Oversight Panel has a report attacking the AIG bailout, reports Simmi Aujla: &#34;Federal Reserve and Treasury officials should have tried much harder to save AIG without using taxpayer money, said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School bankruptcy professor and chairwoman of the panel.&#34;FinReg conference committee started yesterday; here's where the House and Senate bills diverge: http://bit.ly/bJleAzRichard Shelby says FinReg conference committee is off to a &#34;rocky star&#34;, reports Carrie Budoff Brown: &#34;Shelby and his Republican colleagues criticized Democrats for releasing a revised version of the base bill only hours before the conference committee was set to meet. They said the last-minute changes belied Democratic pledges to make the committee&#8217;s work fully transparent.&#34;Wall Street and Louisville: http://nyti.ms/amerpBThe SEC has approved new restrictions meant to prevent another &#34;flash crash&#34;, reports Zachary Goldfarb: &#34;The nation's financial markets on Friday will start pausing trading in any stock in the Standard and Poor's 500-stock index if it declines more than 10 percent in any five-minute period.&#8230;The SEC is also looking at banning &#34;stub&#34; quotes that allow market-makers -- firms that agree to buy and sell shares to ensure that investors can make trades -- to technically stay active in the market as is required by some exchanges.&#34;Breakdowns in coordination plague SEC regional offices: http://bit.ly/9eOTnKFinReg will include mortgage restrictions, reports Damian Paletta: &#34;The mortgage section would require lenders to make sure borrowers have the ability to repay home loans. It puts limits on lenders&#8217; ability to offer loans without documentation from borrowers, and has rules regarding the way loans can be refinanced.&#34;Simon Johnson argues it's up to Obama to fight for the Merkley-Levin amendment: &#34;The president announced the Volcker rule to great acclaim in late January, but unfortunately the detailed follow-up by his own team was lackluster at best. Senators Merkley and Levin stepped into the political and legislative gap, pushing hard for at least some version of the Volcker principles to be adopted in Senator Christopher Dodd&#8217;s bill. They were turned back at every stage but have remained doggedly on message. Ultimately, this comes down to President Obama. Is he willing to put his political capital seriously into play?&#34;When-men-were-men interlude: Vintage men's magazine covers.Closing credits: Wonkbook compiled with the help of Dylan Matthews and Mike Shepard. Photo credit: Gero Breloer-AP.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Lugar Introduces Climate Bill Without Cap-and-Trade</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6906</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>New York Times</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6906</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[The latest proposal to deal with energy and climate change came on Wednesday from Senator Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican from Indiana. His plan seeks to cut energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions without creating a new market in carbon credits or taking a big bite out of the economy.

The proposal, called the Lugar Practical [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The latest proposal to deal with energy and climate change came on Wednesday from Senator Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican from Indiana. His plan seeks to cut energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions without creating a new market in carbon credits or taking a big bite out of the economy.

The proposal, called the Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan, has little chance of passage in the Democratic-dominated Senate.

But Mr. Lugar’s more incremental approach is designed to appeal to moderate Republicans and a group of Midwestern Democrats who are nervous about the impact of broad climate change legislation on jobs in states that are heavily dependent on coal and manufacturing.

Joining Mr. Lugar in proposing the new bill was Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who spent the better part of the last year working with Senators John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut on a more ambitious energy measure.

He abruptly dropped his sponsorship of their measure in April in an unrelated dispute with Senate leaders and the White House over immigration policy.

The Lugar-Graham plan achieves savings in electricity and oil use by requiring higher mileage for vehicles, greater efficiency in power generation, increased use of alternative fuels and new standards for energy use in buildings.

There is no mandatory reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases like those in the Kerry-Lieberman plan put forward last month.

That bill contains a limited version of cap and trade, a system of setting a limit on carbon dioxide emissions while allowing companies to buy and sell permits to meet it.

Mr. Lugar said on Wednesday that cap and trade systems had failed to achieve the desired reductions while imposing large economic costs. They are also politically counterproductive, he said.

“By placing carbon reductions ahead of solving energy vulnerabilities, the cap and trade bills situate the energy debate on the most controversial and unsustainable political ground,” he said.

“Energy policy would benefit greatly from something close to a political consensus. The most contradictory outcome would be the imposition of an expensive cap and trade plan by a narrow political margin at a time when the added expense could intensify economic pressures in the United States, thus undercutting the appetite of Americans for any efforts toward carbon reductions.”

The new Lugar proposal would achieve roughly half the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions sought under the Kerry-Lieberman plan and a bill passed by the House a year ago. It falls short of the goal of the Obama administration as well.

Mr. Lugar acknowledged that his bill faced an uphill path but he said he hoped to present an alternative that would achieve significant energy savings and pollution reductions without huge costs to the economy.

He said he had not sought endorsements from fellow senators and had not discussed his plan with industry, environmental or lobbying groups. He said that Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, had told him she would support it.

Mr. Graham, who appeared with Mr. Lugar to announce the new bill, said he believed the proposal had the best chance of any of several proposals now before the Senate.

“There’s no offshore drilling in it and no cap and trade,” he said. “That’s why I’m with him. This gets the game started.”

Some environmental organizations came out quickly in opposition to the Lugar plan, saying that its emissions reductions were not adequate to address climate change and that it permitted old coal-burning power plants to continue to operate indefinitely.

“This is too little, too late,” said Daniel J. Weiss of the Center for American Progress. He and many other environmental advocates support the Kerry-Lieberman approach.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Farmers and Ranchers Fighting Back</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6885</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AgInfo.net</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[AgInfo.net]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6885</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Farmer and Ranchers Fighting Back. I’m Greg Martin with today’s Line On Agriculture.

Farmers and ranchers throughout the country were horrified by an undercover video showing dairy cows being abused. Mace Thornton of the American Farm Bureau Federation says there’s just no excuse for that kind of behavior.

Thornton: As the nation’s largest farm organization, we really [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Farmer and Ranchers Fighting Back. I’m Greg Martin with today’s Line On Agriculture.

Farmers and ranchers throughout the country were horrified by an undercover video showing dairy cows being abused. Mace Thornton of the American Farm Bureau Federation says there’s just no excuse for that kind of behavior.

Thornton: As the nation’s largest farm organization, we really feel it’s important to condemn the actions of cruelty against animals in that video and we know that at least one farm worker that was involved has been charged with 12 counts of animal cruelty.

And Thornton says that’s certainly the way it should be. Anyone doing such violent acts should be prosecuted.

Thornton: America’s farmers and ranchers will not stand for cruelty of any kind against farm animals. As a community we have to continue to be vigilant to stop those few people who are giving animal agriculture a bad name. We believe very strongly at the American Farm Bureau that as members of the agricultural community there comes a responsibility, a responsibility to put a halt to any kind of animal abuse as soon as you know about it. That might be contacting members of the local law enforcement community, expressing the concerns and asking them to step in appropriately.

And he hopes the general public won’t hold the actions of a few sick people against everyone in agriculture.

Thornton: Any time there is a highly visible incidentit’s very easy for critics of agriculture o paint the industry with a broad brush. Of course we know that that is far from the truth. We know that farmers and ranchers across this country care about the animals that they have on their farms and ranches.

He talks about the reaction of farmers and ranchers to the release of an undercover video showing animal abuse.

Thornton: Farmers and ranchers understand the ethical and moral responsibilities that they have to take care of the farm animals that are in their care. They take that job very seriously and when they see these kinds of violent behaviors against farm animals, it’s really troubling to them.

Thornton says the authorities should throw the book at anyone who abuses animals.

Thornton: We believe law enforcement should really look hard at pursuing the maximum penalties for the people who were responsible for these heinous acts of animal cruelty. ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Obama Says He’ll Push for Clean Energy Bill</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6883</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>New York Times</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6883</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[By HELENE COOPER

PITTSBURGH — President Obama said Wednesday that it was time for the United States “to aggressively accelerate” its transition from oil to alternative sources of energy and vowed to push for quick action on climate change legislation despite almost unanimous opposition from Republicans and continued skepticism from some Democrats.

Seeking to harness the deepening [...]]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
By HELENE COOPER

PITTSBURGH — President Obama said Wednesday that it was time for the United States “to aggressively accelerate” its transition from oil to alternative sources of energy and vowed to push for quick action on climate change legislation despite almost unanimous opposition from Republicans and continued skepticism from some Democrats.

Seeking to harness the deepening anger over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to the advantage of his legislative agenda, Mr. Obama promised to find the lagging votes in the Senate to get the climate change and energy bill passed this year. Last year, the House passed a version of the bill, which tries to address global warming by putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution and provides incentives for alternative clean energy sources.

“If we refuse to take into account the full cost of our fossil fuel addiction — if we don’t factor in the environmental costs and national security costs and true economic costs — we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future,” Mr. Obama said. “The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months.”

Mr. Obama’s remarks were made to a group of about 300 local business owners and economic officials at Carnegie Mellon University. He used them to reiterate his call to roll back Bush administration tax breaks for oil companies and to make a broader case for his administration’s accomplishments heading into an election season.

He defended what he cast as his vision of active but restrained government against a conservative limited-government philosophy that he said had proved a failure under President George W. Bush, and he criticized Republicans in Congress as obstructionists.

“From our efforts to rescue the economy to health insurance reform to financial reform, most have sat on the sidelines and shouted from the bleachers,” the president said. “They said no to tax cuts for small businesses, no to tax credits for college tuition, no to investments in clean energy. They said no to protecting patients from insurance companies and consumers from big banks.”

Republicans shot back quickly. Even before Mr. Obama had begun his speech, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican whip, issued a statement saying “the president gives a good speech, but good speeches can’t improve failing policies.”

“Out-of-control Washington spending,” Mr. Cantor said, “has created a massive debt, private-sector businesspeople — small and large — are preparing for additional tax increases, and the government keeps on growing.”

Many clean-energy advocates have argued that Mr. Obama should try to take advantage of the national anger over the gulf oil spill to challenge Republicans on the climate change bill, saying that his best chance to get such a bill passed is now.

Apparently eager to seize an opportunity to take the offensive after weeks of playing defense on the oil spill, Mr. Obama suggested that he was happy to engage in a major battle for the legislation in the coming months.

He described the “inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the earth,” to fuel the country’s dependence on oil. “We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves,” he said. “Without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month, including countries in dangerous and unstable regions.”

The White House has been trying to stop the environmental disaster in the gulf, now in its seventh week, from consuming the second year of his presidency.

A day after disclosing that the federal government is conducting criminal and civil investigations of BP and other companies in connection with the spill, Mr. Obama did not directly criticize BP or the oil industry generally. Instead, he framed his agenda in positive terms, saying that the “time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future” and that the transition would succeed only “if the private sector is fully invested in this future.” ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Getting a jump on green initiatives</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6843</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 May 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Boston Globe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Boston Globe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6843</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[...energy consumption would be reduced by 22 percent, McGlynn said.``We can improve greenhouse gas emissions and save money in the operation of the budget,'' McGlynn said.Like Andover and Lowell, Medford got a jump-start on green initiatives several years ago, becoming the first community (OTCBB:FCCTO) (OTCBB:FCCT) in the state to adopt a climate protection plan back in 1999, and having the first Energy Star-rated city hall in New England in 2005, McGlynn said.Last year, Medford...]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[By Katheleen Conti May 30, 2010 (The Boston Globe delivered by Newstex) -- After Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast and caused oil prices to skyrocket to record levels five years ago, Joseph R. Piantedosi, Andover's plant and facilities director, knew the town had to find a way to survive the sudden spike.He worked with other town officials to fast-track energy conservation initiatives, from having workers shut down their computers at the end of the day to converting most of the town's buildings over to natural gas. Savings have been measured both in dollars and in significant energy reduction, Piantedosi said.So when the opportunity arose to be among the first to be designated a Green Community by the state, Andover officials didn't hesitate. Andover is among 40 cities and towns statewide to have recently adopted the so-called Stretch Code, which imposes more stringent energy efficiency requirements  - 20 percent greater than the state's existing building code  - on new residential and commercial construction, renovations, and additions.Of those 40 communities, 35 were designated on Tuesday by Governor Deval Patrick as the state's first official Green Communities,making them eligible for $8.1 million in grants for renewable power and energy-efficient projects.The communities in the North area are Andover, Chelmsford, Hamilton, Lowell, Medford, Melrose, Salem,Tyngsborough, and Wenham. The deadline  to apply for a share of the  money is Friday. The grants will be awarded late next month. Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Philip Giudice said there is excitement in having communities "wanting to be leaders in this matter'' before it goes into effect statewide. Giudice said buildings account for about 40 percent of the energy used in the state, and a lot of it is wasted because "a significant percentage of our homes in the state have no insulation.''``It's a great statement in leadership,'' Giudice said.  "Wasting energy is no way  to run a railroad.''Adopted in May 2009 as an amendment to the state's building code, the Stretch Code is scheduled to go into effect statewide in 2012. It is among five criteria cities and towns had to adopt by May 14 in order to be designated a Green Community. The other designation criteria include allowing renewable or alternative energy projects to locate "as-of-right'' in designated areas without the need for a special permit; expediting the permitting process for those projects; committing to reducing municipal energy use by 20 percent in five years; and only purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use.Because of all the work Andover has put toward energy reduction, the Department of Energy Resources credited the town for reducing municipal energy consumption by 7 percent between 2008 and 2009, Piantedosi said. The credit will go toward the town's pledge to reduce its energy use by 20 percent in five years, meaning they only have 13 percent to go.``The grants will help a lot because we have a very aggressive program moving forward,'' Piantedosi said.``These lighting projects that are ready to go will save us around $126,000 a year.''In Lowell, being designated a Green Community would allow city officials to expedite energy reduction goals begun three years ago, said associate planner Aaron Clausen.In 2007, the city endorsed the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, committing to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Clausen said.In 2008, the city entered into a performance contract with an energy service company that identified more than 20 conservation measures that could be done in 48 municipal buildings, Clausen said. The program allowed the city to be on track to reduce its energy use by 20 percent in five years. This, combined with Lowell's  "as-of-right'' bylaw and expedited permitting process, meant that the city already met three of the  five criteria, Clausen said.The city worked quickly to adopt the Stretch Code and the fuel-efficiency vehicle requirement. If awarded a grant, Lowell hopes to use the money to fund projects such as window replacement at City Hall.``Our City Hall is a 19th century structure; we can't just replace the windows,'' Clausen said. "There has to be complete construction, which can get pretty costly.''In Medford, potential Green Community grant money would be combined with National Grid rebates to make the approximately 40-year-old high school building more energy-efficient, said Mayor Michael J. McGlynn. A building evaluation by National Grid indicated the total capital cost to "tighten the envelope'' of the high school is about $3 million, including revamping the entire HVAC system. The cost is estimated to be  recouped through energy savings within  six years, while energy consumption would be reduced by 22 percent, McGlynn said.``We can improve greenhouse gas emissions and save money in the operation of the budget,'' McGlynn said.Like Andover and Lowell, Medford got a jump-start on green initiatives several years ago, becoming the first community (OTCBB:FCCTO)  (OTCBB:FCCT)  in the state to adopt a climate protection plan back in 1999,  and having the first Energy Star-rated city hall in New England in 2005, McGlynn said.Last year, Medford also erected one of the area's first wind turbines and received $504,000 in federal stimulus funding to upgrade energy efficiencies in six schools, he added.Even before Medford's official designation as a Green Community, McGlynn said, its residents already embrace that role.``When we put up the wind turbine last year, it was like a lightning bolt for people to get involved with environmental issues,'' McGlynn said. "Everybody now claims ownership of it. It's a pride thing.''Katheleen Conti can be reached at kconti@globe.com. Newstex ID: BGL-1035-45550662 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Gulf spill: An opportunity for change?</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6839</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Post</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6839</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[With new figures on the spill size out yesterday, we now know that the gulf gusher has created the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. It dwarfs the two previous spills of record, the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and the Santa Barbara spill in 1969. Action is in the Senate's hands, but Americans have to demand it.Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jennifer AbellaBy Kate SheppardAt yesterday's news conference on the gulf oil spill, President Obama made an appeal to Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. &#34;If nothing else this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to move forward with this legislation,&#34; he said.The Senate so far has not been very enthusiastic about passing a package this year. I could blame senators alone, but it's not like most Americans have been banging down their doors demanding a climate bill, either. Unlike health care, the economy and national security, environment and energy have consistently remained low on the list of priorities for most Americans.But might this oil spill turn that around? With new figures on the spill size out yesterday, we now know that the gulf gusher has created the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. It dwarfs the two previous spills of record, the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and the Santa Barbara spill in 1969. It might even make the list of the worst oil spills in world history. (The fact that it might not is perhaps the most frightening aspect.)Accordingly, public concern about the environment has made a sharp upward turn in the weeks since the gulf spill. Unless you're a Republican, in which case it hasn't. But still, overall public opinion is changing, on offshore drilling in particular and the environment in general. It is becoming clear to many Americans that our current energy system is dangerous and unsustainable, and that the environmental risks aren't worth it.Historically, environmental disasters have been an impetus for landmark environmental legislation. The Santa Barbara spill helped inspire a whole generation of environmental activism, launching the first Earth Day and spurring the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, all in 1970. The Valdez spill helped ease the passage of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and spurred the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.The gulf spill offers an opportunity to do that again. Action is in the Senate's hands, but Americans have to demand it.Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, see here, and you can follow her on Twitter here.]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
			<item>
		<title>Senate vote hits illegal residents</title>
		<link>http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6836</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Boston Globe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Home]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Boston Globe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fbact.illumen.org/article.jsf?postId=6836</guid>

		<description><![CDATA[Must be an election year,'' said Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, who said the measure exceeded her group's demands. "I'm surprised it passed in the Senate. I really am.''After about a half-hour of debate, immigration advocates say, the amendment dramatically changed the state's image as a compassionate, immigrant-friendly state.]]></description>
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[By Noah Bierman  and Maria Sacchetti May 28, 2010 (The Boston Globe delivered by Newstex) -- The Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown yesterday on illegal immigrants and those who hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.In a measure of just how politically potent illegal immigration has become, the Senate, on a 28-10 vote, replaced a far milder budget amendment it had passed Wednesday. The  sweeping provision, if it makes it into law, would toughen or expand rules that bar illegal immigrants from public health care, housing, and higher education benefits.The amendment would also clear the way for courts, the state attorney general, and even average citizens to get new tools, including an anonymous hot line, to  report  illegal immigrants or companies  that employ them  to the government.The prospects for the measure to become law, however, are  uncertain. Not only would it have to make the final budget plan lawmakers approve for next fiscal year, but it would also have to  survive a possible veto by Governor Deval Patrick, who has been cool to such initiatives.Still, the vote, on the second day of Senate budget debate, stunned both advocates for immigrants and those who favor stricter enforcement, for its broad sweep and the swiftness with which it passed in the Democrat- controlled Senate.``Whoo hoo! They voted for it. Must be an election year,'' said Christen Varley,  president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, who said the measure exceeded her group's demands. "I'm surprised it passed in the Senate. I really am.''After about a half-hour of debate, immigration advocates say, the amendment dramatically changed the state's image as a compassionate, immigrant-friendly state. Only three years ago, some Massachusetts officials were critical of a dramatic federal immigration raid at a New Bedford factory and the state even sent social workers to Texas to check on immigrants who may have been separated from their children. Patricia Montes,  executive director of Centro Presente in Somerville, immediately scheduled a rally for noon tomorrow  on Boston Common in protest. Eva A. Millona,  executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said she  asked for an urgent meeting with Attorney General Martha Coakley.``The poorest and the least able to defend themselves will suffer so that the powerful people on Beacon Hill can get reelected,'' Millona said.The measure would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring the hiring of illegal immigrants. It would also toughen penalties for driving without a license and for creating or using fake identification documents and would explicitly deny in-state college tuition rates for illegal immigrants.In addition, the amendment would require the state's public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security and would prevent illegal immigrants from getting subsidized housing over legal residents.Advocates said several provisions in the amendment were  unnecessary, because illegal immigrants are already ineligible for most government services and benefits, including in-state tuition. Patrick spokesman Juan Martinez  made the same point in a statement, saying, "the state already has extensive and rigorous eligibility screenings and residency requirements'' for many services.``We will continue to work with the House and the Senate to ensure that any new efforts are not duplicative, too costly, and overly burdensome for all citizens,'' Martinez said.Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz,  a Boston Democrat who opposed the measure, said it had not been properly vetted and would add undue obligations  for businesses and state government when they could ill afford it. Minutes after  the measure passed, she looked stricken.``It was a shameful vote,'' she told reporters. "That's all I have to say.''But supporters, especially Republicans, struck patriotic notes and spoke of the sanctity of the rule of law on the Senate floor.``It was President Lincoln  - and I'm going to paraphrase here  - who suggested that respect for the law should be preached from every pulpit, taught by every mother to every child,'' said state Senator Bruce E. Tarr,  a Gloucester Republican.The vote comes weeks after a measure  that sought to bar illegal immigrants from state services narrowly failed in the House. It adds to  heightened debate over illegal immigration fueled by the election season and Arizona's passage in April of the toughest immigration law in the nation, which gives state and local police broad powers to help enforce federal immigration laws.Though immigration laws are enforced by the federal government, many states have sought to toughen their own laws, partly out of frustration that Washington has not come up with a solution to deal with the estimated 12 million people living in the United States illegally.Recent polls have found that, while voters supported blocking illegal immigrants' access to public benefits, they were split over whether the Bay State should have a law like Arizona's. Most immigrants in Massachusetts are here legally, but an estimated 190,000, or 20 percent, are here illegally, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.Supporters said the measure is more about cracking down on fraud and protecting tax money than replicating the expanded powers given to Arizona police. ``We are not Arizona. This is different than Arizona,'' said state Senator Steven A. Baddour,  a Methuen Democrat who worked with Republicans late Wednesday night to craft the final bill.The amendment would give some new indirect authority to local law enforcement, forcing the courts to report any illegal immigrants charged with crimes to federal authorities, whether they are found guilty or not.It also requests that Coakley discuss a potential state enforcement role with the US Justice Department and report on her findings. Coakley, who has made a point of reaching out to immigrants to fight employment exploitation, said through a spokeswoman that she was  reviewing the amendment.The Senate vote puts added political pressure on House leaders and the governor.  Patrick has taken some action against illegal immigration, including signing an executive order requiring state contractors to weed out illegal immigrants, but has said that efforts to block services for illegal immigrants are about "trying to invent a villain for political purposes.''Charles D. Baker, Patrick's Republican opponent,  called on Patrick to support the measure, applauding the Senate for "listening to the residents here who have long called for serious action in illegal immigration.''House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo was noncommittal, saying in a statement that  the matter would be addressed in a House-Senate conference committee and that he believes "we should make sure residency requirements are fully enforced.''Senate President Therese Murray helped negotiate the bill, but she did not fully endorse it.``There are parts of it that I don't like,'' she said. "But the members wanted it.'' Bierman can be reached at nbierman@globe.com; Sacchetti at msacchetti@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter at @mariasacchetti. Newstex ID: BGL-1035-45502385 ]]></content:encoded>
		
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
