February 15, 2013

President Obama’s fourth State of the Union address outlined a number of bold domestic priorities, including addressing climate change and diverting a series of automatic discretionary spending cuts set to occur in March as a result of congressional  failure to come to agreement on comprehensive deficit reduction.

“Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense,” said President Obama. “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.”

President Obama called on Congress to enact bipartisan legislation on climate change similar to past proposals while cautioning that inaction will lead to unilateral executive orders and federal agency regulations.  “I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy,” stated President Obama.

With regard to budget sequestration, President Obama affirmed his support for a bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction while contending that he would oppose an effort that unduly burden discretionary programs. “Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits. That idea is even worse,” said the president. “We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers, cops, and firefighters.” Among solutions to avert the sequester, President Obama endorsed changes to Medicare and tax reform proposals such as those outlined in the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, commonly known as the Simpson-Bowles commission.

His priorities for advancing educational opportunity include “Race to the Top,” which encourages states to competitively improve their educational curriculum. He also promoted the role science education plays in furthering job growth. “Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy,” pledged President Obama. “We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.”

Read or listen to President Obama’s full 2013 State of the Union address here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/13/president-obamas-2013-state-union

On Feb. 14, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) unveiled a legislative proposal to avert automatic discretionary spending cuts to federal agencies. The deficit reduction in the bill is equally divided between spending cuts and new revenue. Members of Congress have until March 1 to pass a bill to avert the $1.2 trillion cuts to federal programs over the next ten years.

The American Family Economic Protection Act would postpone the sequester for one year by canceling out the first year of the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, which total $85 billion. In total, the bill includes $110 billion in deficit reduction, $55 billion in revenue increases and $55 billion evenly divided between defense and non-defense discretionary programs. The bill is similar to legislation introduced by House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), H.R. 699, the Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act.

The revenue provisions set a minimum tax rate for the wealthy and change the tax treatment of oil extraction from tar sands. The $55 billion in revenue also includes $1 billion from ending tax breaks that motivate companies to move overseas. The discretionary spending provisions include a $27.5 billion reduction in agricultural subsidies known as direct payments (negotiated by Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)) and a $27.5 billion reduction in defense programs.

Chairwoman Stabenow contends the cuts to direct payments have bipartisan support in the Senate and will free up funding in the next farm bill for disaster assistance, renewable energy and conservation programs. “The choice facing Congress is to allow drastically irresponsible cuts to hit every part of our budget and cost 750,000 jobs, or to make smart, targeted cuts. Billions in direct payment subsidies are paid out even in good times and for crops farmers aren’t even growing. That’s why an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate voted to eliminate direct payments last year while strengthening support for farmers when they have a loss,” she stated.

The proposal has been initially met with skepticism from liberal Senate Democrats who claim the proposal gives too much away to Congressional Republicans, arguing it will lead to a final compromise that includes a disproportionately large amount of spending cuts. Liberal Senate Democrats have argued that the tax increase to spending cuts ratio should be more along the lines of 80-20. They assert that when taking into account federal spending reductions enacted between Fiscal Year 2011 through the present, Congress has already enacted well over $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, but only $600 billion in revenue savings from raising taxes on the wealthy through the American Taxpayer Relief Act (P.L. 112-240). Several key Senate liberals nonetheless indicated they would ultimately vote for the proposal.

Reid, however, may be more concerned about retaining his Democratic majority as red state Democratic Senators up for reelection in 2014 are unlikely to support a bill that largely consists of tax increases. There are currently six Democratic Senators up for reelection in states carried by former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Those losses alone would be enough to switch control of the Senate to Republicans. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), whose committee has primary jurisdiction over revenue issues and who is among the Senators running for re-election in a solid red state, has expressed concern with a deficit reduction plan that is disproportionately made up of revenue increases.

The House meanwhile has declared it will not take up legislation to avert the sequester this year, asserting that the Senate must act first. This political positioning likely is somewhat attributable to the fact that their most recent attempt to avert sequestration before the end of the 112th Congress (H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act) passed the House Dec. 20, 2012 by a razor thin margin of 215-209. Twenty-one Republicans voted against the bill and one (Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)) voted present. With Democrats having gained eight seats after the 2012 elections, it’s unlikely the same bill could pass the House again this year in the new 113th Congress. With the House and Senate both set to adjourn for recess the week of President’s Day, lawmakers now have only the final week of February to work out a deal to avert sequestration.

Senate Appropriations Committee holds hearing on sequester impacts

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) recently convened a hearing of federal agency heads outlining the specific impacts of sequestration on agencies. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has noted that enacting the sequester will lead to the loss of 750,000 jobs by the end of calendar year 2013.  To view the hearing as well as letters from individual agency heads (including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency), click here:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-full.cfm?method=hearings.view&id=17d3dc99-c065-4bec-a7c8-cfd374bf41a3

President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal is slated to include a one percent increase for federal workers. If passed by Congress, the increase would end the pay freeze that has been in effect for over two years amid deficit reduction efforts.

The increase, while larger than some in Congress have proposed, would still not keep up with wage growth in the private sector. Major federal labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union claim the proposed increase is too small and that federal workers have contributed more than their fair share towards deficit reduction.

Under current law, federal employees are slated to receive a 0.5 percent pay increase on March 27 unless blocked by federal law. House Republicans this week, however, voted on a bill (H.R. 273) to freeze pay for federal workers through the end of calendar year 2013. The bill passed Feb. 15 by a vote of 261-154. Ten Republicans broke with their party to oppose the bill. Meanwhile, 43 Democrats supported the bill while 144 voted against it. The White House opposed the bill, but issued no formal veto threat. The Senate is unlikely to take up the measure.

Among the Republicans to oppose the bill was Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who represents an area of northern Virginia home to many federal employees. Rep Wolf circulated a Dear Colleague letter to House Republicans that refers to the bill as a “political stunt,” asserting that any savings achieved under the bill would be “a drop in the bucket towards deficit reduction and a hollow gesture absent meaningful mandatory spending reforms.” He notes that federal employees include CIA and FBI agents, food inspectors, veteran’s doctors and nurses, firefighters, park rangers and scientists, “the people you call when you need help.”

View the Wolf letter here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/08/National-Politics/Graphics/WOLF-VOTE-NO-ON-HR-273.pdf

The Ecological Society of America joined five other major scientific societies in a letter to President Obama to convene a high-level summit on climate change. Spearheaded by the Society on Conservation Biology, the letter outlines a number of actions the administration could take to mitigate the effects of climate change. Among its recommendations, the letter urges improving federal response to natural disasters, taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through regulating land-use activities and instituting a carbon tax, preserving national wildlife refuges, investing in renewable energy and reducing dependence on foreign oil.

“The steps outlined above will also provide a basis for stronger international steps to advance the initiatives you have already begun and bolster our engagement with the international community in the clean production of goods and services,” the letter adds. “Throughout this process we stand ready to act as climate ambassadors to build supportive partnerships with science-based groups around the world.” 

View the full letter, here:
http://www.conbio.org/images/content_policy/2013-2-8_Presidential_Climate_Science-Policy_Summit_Letter.pdf

On Feb. 14, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held its first hearing of the 113th Congress entitled, “The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities. The hearing sought to review whether additional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory efforts are necessary, given the current progress made under existing environmental protection laws.

Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) noted that progress that has been made in environmental protection, asserting that the nation’s biggest environmental challenges have been addressed and that President Obama and environmentalists’ calls for additional environmental regulations seek only to address “imaginary hobgoblins.” In his opening statement, Chairman Harris asserted “Americans are constantly bombarded by the media and this administration with doomsday predictions.  For instance, we have been told that extreme storms and increased childhood asthma are indicators that the environment is worse off than ever.  These allegations fly in the face of the hard facts that severe weather has always been a threat and that our air quality has improved dramatically.”

Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamci (D-OR) countered that, particularly in light of the fact that healthcare costs are the primary driver of current federal deficits, continued investment in efforts enhance air and water quality are vital towards protecting human health and prosperity. “As we look ahead to future EPA action, including the issuance of new and updated regulations, it is worth reminding ourselves of the source of such regulation and the benefit to society. In the four decades since it was signed into law, the Clean Air Act has prevented hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, not to mention saving trillions of dollars in health care costs,” she stated. “With the cost of health care widely agreed to be one of the central drivers of our nation’s fiscal challenges, we as policymakers would consider this a good result.”

Harris’s sentiments were reiterated by witness Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant with Trinity Inc., who noted in his testimony that “There is, in summary, a big difference between solving problems and searching for problems to solve.” Branding himself a “global warming skeptic,” he asserted that the nation invests too much in environmental problems such as water quality and air toxicity that are either minimal or have been largely addressed. “We simply do not have an air toxics problem in the United States today and, to the extent that anyone is unduly concerned by the small amounts of air toxics that exist in the atmosphere, industry should not continue to be the primary target of USEPA and environmental advocacy groups,” stated Trzupek.

Witness Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, sought to answer critique that EPA regulatory initiatives place undue costs on industry.  “From the 1960’s, since I have been involved [in this field] I have heard over and over again these same arguments, and then industry retreats from them. As it turns out, in fact they can [meet regulations] at far less cost,” stated Goldstein. He maintained that “we need regulations based on the best science, not on the best lobbying skills.” 

View the full hearing here:
http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-state-environment-evaluating-progress-and-priorities

On Feb. 14, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee convened a hearing entitled “Drought, Fire and Freeze: The Economics of Disasters for America’s Agricultural Producers.” The hearing outlined the costly impacts droughts and warming temperatures have had on the agricultural industry.

“Nobody feels the effect of weather disasters more deeply than our nation’s farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods’ depend on getting just the right amount of rain at just the right time,” said Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). “All too frequently, an entire season’s crop can be lost or an entire herd must be sent to slaughter due to lack of feed. 2012 was a year of unprecedented destruction from drought, freeze, wildfires, hurricanes, and tornadoes – including the tornadoes that hit Mississippi and other parts of the South last weekend, and my heart goes out to all the survivors of those devastating storms.”

United States Department of Agriculture Chief Economist Joe Glauber noted how 2011 crop insurance indemnities (payments for crop losses) totaled a then-record $10.8 billion with $4.1 billion paid to producers in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. He stated in his testimony that indemnity payments for 2012 are likely to top $17 billion. The losses were attributable to severe drought conditions and natural disasters. Glauber noted that “59 percent of winter wheat areas; 69 percent of cattle production; and 59 percent of hay acreage remain under drought conditions.”

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Integrated Drought Information System Director Roger Pulwarty stated that extreme drought contributed to an unusually high number of forest fires in 2012. Quoting a spokesman for the National Interagency Fire Center, he stated “Since 1960, when we began keeping good records, surpassing nine million acres burned has only happened three times: this year, 2006 and 2007.” He noted that dry weather had depleted soil moisture, lowered stream and river levels, which threatened commerce on Mississippi river lanes by the close of 2012.

The hearing’s second panel included farmers whose testimony included personal stories on how they have been impacted by crop loss. “Drought has reduced the number of cattle and processing facilities have closed as a result,” stated Montana rancher Leon LaSalle. Indiana soybean farmer Anngie Steinbarger said drought in 2012 had led to the lowest crop yields on record for her farm.  Michigan Cherry farmer Jeff Send noted how a mild winter had caused his cherries to grow early, leaving them vulnerable to subsequent freezing temperatures in April. All expressed the need for improvements in federal programs that deal with disaster assistance and extreme weather events.

View the full hearing here:
http://www.ag.senate.gov/hearings/drought-fire-and-freeze

In his departure announcement to employees, outgoing Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu tied addressing climate change and reducing US dependency on foreign oil to addressing fiscal and economic concerns.

After outlining DOE’s accomplishments during his leadership, including research in new energy technology, Chu outlined the fiscal burden of continued dependence on foreign oil. “The United States spent roughly $430 billion dollars on foreign oil in 2012. This is a direct wealth transfer out of our country,” Secretary Chu noted. “Many billions more are spent to keep oil shipping lanes open and oil geo-politics add considerable additional burdens. Although our oil imports are projected to fall to a 25 year low next year, we still pay a heavy economic, national security and human cost for our oil addiction.”

In addition to reaffirming the scientific consensus that human activity plays a significant role in climate change, Chu outlined the increasing financial burden dealing with the impacts of climate change has placed upon the US economy. “During the three decades from 1980 to 2011, the number of violent storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, as tabulated by the reinsurance company Munich Re, has increased more than three-fold,” Chu continued. “They also estimate that the financial losses follow a trend line that has gone from $40 billion to $170 billion dollars per year. Most of those losses were not insured, and the country suffering the largest losses by far is the United States.” 

A leading candidate to replace Chu is Ernest Moniz, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During the Clinton administration he served as Associate Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1995-1997) and Under Secretary of the Department of Energy (1997-2001). Moniz, who views the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing as challenging, yet manageable, could be seen as a compromise pick to allay energy development industry concerns. Other potential contenders include former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), former Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO), former Gov. Christine Gregoire (D-WA) and former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI).

Chu stated that he plans to stay on as Secretary at least through the end of February. He may stay on longer than that, partially contingent on when his successor is confirmed. View the full announcement here:
http://energy.gov/articles/letter-secretary-steven-chu-energy-department-employees-announcing-his-decision-not-serve

On Feb. 6, President Obama nominated Sally Jewell, Chief Executive Officer of Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI) as his second-term pick for Secretary of the Interior.

With a strong background in both conservation and the business industry, it is hoped that nominee Sally Jewell will be able to bridge the divide between constituencies that prioritize environmental stewardship with those that prioritize energy development. Her business background includes two decades in corporate banking, having worked for Rainer Bank, Security Pacific, WestOne Bank and Washington Mutual from  1981-2000. She also spent time as an engineer for Exxon Mobile (1978-81). In 2005, she became CEO of REI after having been its chief operating officer since 2000. She also serves on the board of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA).

An avid hiker who bikes to work, Jewell  has contributed to the Outdoor Industry Association’s Political Action Committee, which has supported environmentally-friendly Democrats and Republicans, including Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Mike Simpson (R-ID), who notably serves as Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which drafts the annual bill to fund the agency she would oversee. Past personal donations include President Obama’s re-election campaign, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) (her two Senators), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will hold her confirmation hearing.

Immediate reactions from key Senate leaders suggest Jewell will get a fair confirmation hearing. “Sally Jewell is an inspired choice to lead the Interior Department. Her experience leading a nearly $2 billion outdoor recreation company, combined with her years of work in the financial sector, puts her in a position to bring a new vision to the Interior Department,” said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) in a press statement. “Her record shows that she understands the importance of preserving our public lands for future generations, as well as the critical links between public lands, natural resources and economic growth.”

Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) gave a considerably more reserved statement: “So many of the decisions made by the Interior Secretary have a profound impact on Alaska, and other Western states,” Murkowski said. “The livelihoods of Americans living and working in the West rely on maintaining a real balance between conservation and economic opportunity. I look forward to hearing about the qualifications Ms. Jewell has that make her a suitable candidate to run such an important agency, and how she plans to restore balance to the Interior Department.” Ranking Member Murkowski is considering holding up Jewell’s nomination, nonetheless, over a dispute with the Department of Interior over whether to allow a road through Alaska’s Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to ease accessibility of King Cove residents to an all-weather airport in Cold Bay for weather evacuations.

Conservation groups praising the selection include the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. “Sally Jewell is a business leader who knows that conserving America’s natural resources is fundamentally linked to a healthy and strong economy,” said NWF Vice President for Conservation Policy Jim Lyon. “We believe Ms. Jewell is positioned to continue tackling some of the great challenges of our time, from confronting the growing impacts of climate change to preserving our wildlife heritage.”

While conservation groups were generally elated over the pick of Jewell, industry and energy development groups’ generally were more reserved: “We look forward to learning how Sally Jewell’s business background and experience in the oil and natural gas industry will shape her approach to the game-changing prospects before us in energy development,” stated American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard.

Confirmation hearings for Ms. Jewell have yet to be announced. Current Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will be leaving his post at the end March.

On Feb. 1, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a proposal to list wolverines as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and is seeking public comments.

According to FWS, an estimated 250 to 300 North American wolverines reside in the Rockies of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and part of Oregon. The agency asserts that loss of snowpack habitat as a result of climate change combined with hunting and trapping of wolverines has put the species at risk.

FWS is also seeking comment on two proposed rules to help manage recovery of the species in the event it is listed under the Act: 1) to continue to allow snowmobiling, skiing and certain land management activities such as timber harvesting and infrastructure development to occur and 2) to facilitate reintroduction of the species to its historical range in Colorado. The latter proposal would be spearheaded through the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife.
Scientific information on the proposals will be accepted until May 6, 2013. Proposals can be submitted either electronically through the federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov or via snail mail through the following address: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2012-0107; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

More information on the FWS North American wolverine initiative is available here:
http://www.fws.gov/MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE/SPECIES/MAMMALS/WOLVERINE/

Introduced in House

H.R. 526, the Appalachian Communities Health Emergency Act – Introduced Feb. 6 by Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), the bill would place a moratorium on mountaintop removal mining. The bill has 23 original cosponsors (all Democrats) and has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee.

H.R. 560, to establish the Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area in the State of New Mexico – Introduced Feb. 6 by Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), the bill would provide federal protection for 240,000 acres of federal lands along the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico. The bill has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee. Companion legislation (S. 241) has been introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

H.R. 621, the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act – Introduced Feb. 12 by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), the bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from funding any cap-and-trade or other emissions trading effort that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

H.R. 686, the Save Our Prairies Act – Introduced Feb. 14 by Reps. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Tim Walz (D-MN), the bill would modify the ineligibility requirements for growers that produce an annual crop on native sod. The bill seeks to protect native grasslands from overgrazing. The bill has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee. 

Introduced in Senate

S. 267, the Pirate Fishing Elimination Act of 2013 – Introduced Feb. 11 by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the bill would deter illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The bill has been referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

S. 285, the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act – Introduced Feb. 12 by Sens. Udall (D-NM) and Heinrich (D-NM), the bill would transfer management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service. The transfer would provide the reserve with steady funding necessary to preserve its natural resources. The bill has been referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

S. 332, the Climate Protection Act – Introduced Feb. 14 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the bill would levy a carbon tax on large fossil fuels facilities. It would spend 40 percent of the proceeds on energy efficiency, renewable energy and deficit reduction, and refund the rest to legal U.S. residents on a per capita basis. The bill would also require hydraulic fracturing operations to disclose the chemicals they use. The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.