By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Members of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee expressed skepticism about the cap-and-trade legislation that’s now in the committee’s hands.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, is also referred to as the Waxman-Markey bill. Last week the committee met to listen to the comments of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and several agriculture and agribusiness groups, as well as to make comments of their own. One member, Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), predicted the bill would not become law.

“As this bill stands today I can’t vote for it,” Boswell said, speaking to Vilsack. “I don’t know anyone else on this committee who can. We’ve got quite a lineup of people who are against this, as you know. USDA has got to be a player in this. We have to be at the table, we just have to be. I think the committee’s going to stand together on this.”

At one point Vilsack acknowledged that changes to the legislation would be necessary, but also stated, “The challenges of climate change aren’t going to go away.”

The chair of the committee, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), also expressed skepticism about the bill as it’s currently written, as well as its chances of making it into law. He said he didn’t think the committee would vote in favor of it.

The Agriculture Committee is one of the committees that has jurisdiction over the legislation. It passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee a couple of weeks ago, in its current form. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is the chair of that committee, sponsor of the bill.

One issue brought up during the hearing last Thursday was which department would oversee a cap-and-trade offset program. There were several times when Vilsack was asked who he thought should oversee such a program. He said it should be a partnership between the USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“I think it’s unrealistic that the EPA wouldn’t have a role,” Vilsack said.

Peterson said he thought the USDA should oversee it. During this exchange, he brought out a chart prepared by the EPA that uses international land-use analysis. Peterson said this is a case in point as to why members of his committee don’t want the EPA “anywhere near” an offset program.

This analysis “doesn’t hold water at all,” he said. International land use analysis considers, via a computer model, what effect a farmer in Iowa might have on what a farmer in Brazil does with his land.
At one point during his comments Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) expressed his concerns about who would run the program, as well.
“The EPA is not known to have the best working relationship with farmers,” he said. He stated “the truth about this bill is it raises taxes, kills jobs and increases the amount of government intrusion.”

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

He’s against the bill, too. “Right now this bill is something my colleagues, who care about rural America, cannot vote for,” he said.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), another member of the committee, has come out repeatedly against the bill and last week took a swipe at the science behind global warming.

“The meteorologists are very uneasy about this science,” King said.
Rep. Tim Holden (D-Pa.) complained about how biomass is defined in the bill. “The definition would exclude much forestland under the definition of biomass,” he said.

“Abandoned mine land would not be included.”

Goodlatte also stated at one point that “the biomass definition in this bill is inadequate.”

Several agriculture and agribusiness groups testified at the hearing. A representative sample of the sentiments expressed include comments from Fred Yoder, a past president of the National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA) who currently deals with climate change issues at the NCGA.

“Congress should structure a cap-and-trade system that delivers an offset program where the value exceeds the cost to farmers and ranchers,” Yoder said in his opening statement. “NCGA’s view is that HR 2454 currently falls short of this goal since there is little assurance in the legislation that agriculture offsets will be eligible for participation in a trading market.”

Ford West, president of The Fertilizer Institute, also spoke at the hearing.

“As HR 2454 is currently drafted, it would place U.S. fertilizer producers at a competitive disadvantage and force them to make a stark choice between losing market share to imports or moving production overseas,” West said in his opening remarks.

“American policy that would increase demand and thus drive the cost of natural gas up will further handicap our domestic production and lead to more plant closures.”

The House Agriculture Committee is scheduled to consider the climate change legislation until no later than June 19. It is also under consideration by several other committees.