Washington Report for 4-8-13

By Steve Kopperud

Immigration Reform Progress Accelerating

President Obama ramped up his calls for the Senate to move quickly on comprehensive immigration reform now that labor, general business and Senate drafters appear to be on the same page or close to it. However, there’s no agreement between farm workers and ag employers – who hire the majority of seasonal workers – and key Republican Senators are pushing back, saying they want the bill to be fully vetted through hearings before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) moves it to the floor. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration, refugees and border security subcommittee and one of the architects of his chamber’s likely immigration reform package, said last week “we’re 90 percent there” on bill drafting, but gave no specifics. The only new development on the House side is that the bipartisan coalition of members is looking at not just a single “path to citizenship,” but perhaps as many as three options for undocumented workers. There’s no word on when the House group will present its legislative proposal. The speed with which any immigration reform bill moves through the Senate is becoming more of a hot button issue. Echoing the President’s call for swift action, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said again that it’s his intention to move the bill quickly. Leahy said he wants a meeting with the Senate Gang of Eight – the octet of bipartisan interests who’ve worked for months on the most extensive immigration reform package since 1986 – to discuss how efficiently and quickly a bill can be moved through the Senate. He asked for the meeting in a response letter to Gang of Eight member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), promising a “clear and open” process on the immigration package. Rubio wrote to Leahy to ask for “regular order” in holding hearings on various aspects of the expected legislation. Rubio is a major player in the Senate debate given his conservative credentials, his popularity and constituency. Rubio believes the 2007 congressional effort to reform federal immigration law failed because leadership tried to rush it through the process. As previously reported, six of the eight Republicans on the judiciary committee sent Leahy a similar letter asking him to delay setting a markup deadline on the expected legislation until after Judiciary and other committees have held hearings on aspects of the reform package. “The Judiciary Committee is capable of swift and thorough action,” Leahy wrote to Rubio, citing the several hearings already held by his committee on the need for immigration reform. “As soon as we have comprehensive immigration legislation to review, I will consider scheduling a hearing … I am hopeful you recognize, as I do, that if we do not act quickly and decisively we will lose the opportunity we now have to fix our immigration system.” While the House bipartisan group continues its work, leadership has said very little. However, it appears there may be an increasing GOP consensus that moving a series of smaller targeted immigration reform bills is better than trying to pass a comprehensive legislative package.

Ag, Business, Union Agreements Key to Immigration Deal

The media trumpeted an agreement in principle between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, who have been negotiating for weeks changes in the H2A federal guest worker visa program along with wage rates for low-skill jobs. These groups, along with ag employers and the United Farm Workers Union, have been under heavy pressure from Congress to resolve differences and get behind a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. However, enthusiasm was tempered a bit when the Chamber said it continued to await details of the full legislation before a final sign-off, and that its agreement with the unions is “just one important component of comprehensive immigration reform.” Word also came that some major general industries are not happy with the Chamber-AFL-CIO agreement, pledging to seek changes to the package once it’s introduced. Other businesses, also not on board with the Chamber, are standing by, waiting for other key business provisions of the immigration package to be finalized before making any public pronouncements. But while the Senate Gang of Eight drafting the immigration bill greeted news of the Chamber-AFIA-CIO agreement with glee, that enthusiasm was tempered on word the United Farm Workers and various ag employer groups took a “hiatus” from their talks on guest visas and wage rates. Ag interests were quick to tell reporters that their talks on guest worker visas and wage rates continue, but on a separate track from general business discussions, aided by the involvement of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who introduced in the last Congress her re-invention of the H2A guest worker visa program; Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-CA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Bennet and Rubio are members of the Gang of Eight. The current H2A guest worker visa program has been criticized by industry and agriculture as too expensive and time consuming. One ag grower group said the way the program is currently structured requires growers to predict harvest dates and labor needs 10 months to a year in advance. For these reasons, most growers avoid the program – only 55,000 H2A visas were granted in 2011 – in part explaining why almost half of the undocumented workers in the U.S. work in agriculture, according to reports. Growers hire an estimated two million workers a year. One approach being discussed is to create a new “blue card” visa that would grant legal status to farm workers who’ve been in the U.S. at least two years and intend to stay for at least another five years. This would give “permanence” to the farm worker pool – a major goal of growers – but grower-union talks have hit the same roadblock that plagued the general industry discussions, namely how many visas would be issued and what would wage rates be for low-skill workers. Ag interests want an uncapped Agricultural Worker Visa Program, one that would allow “at-will” employees to move from job to job without a contract, but limit them to 11 months in the country with a government-recognized employer, after which they would have to return to their home country for 30 days. The number of consecutive visas a worker could hold would not be limited. For contract employees, a commitment for a set work period would be required to receive a 12-month visa that would also be renewable more than once. A home-country return for 30 days would be required once every three years. 

“End User Bill of Rights” on Dodd-Frank Rules Unveiled by CFTC’s Chilton

According to a CFTC commissioner, a Commodity Futures Trading Commission rule – set to take effect April 10 requiring end users of futures markets using derivatives to hedge risk to begin first-ever reporting to the commission – may not get strict enforcement. At the same time, CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton, released his “End Users Bill of Rights,” a document he said is designed to guide the commission as “we move into a new, more transparent Dodd-Frank regulatory regime.” In a prepared statement explaining his bill of rights, Chilton said, “Let’s keep in mind that these end users were not the cause of the financial crisis that led to financial reform. In fact, end users were among the many victims of the crisis and much of Dodd-Frank was drafted with their interests in mind.” Chilton said the swaps reporting rule compliance deadline is the first major deadline for a segment of the market not previously regulated by the CFTC. The rule requires end users – non-financial companies – who use derivatives to hedge risk to report thousands of swap trades; however, the rule is confusing and it’s hoped the commission will consider releasing a “no-action” letter delaying immediate compliance with the rule. Chilton, while cautioning “I won’t say I’m optimistic,” said he hoped the CFTC would release more information “in the next couple of days.” In a call with stakeholders and reporters, Chilton said, “I don’t believe we’ve done a good job with end users. It’s a combination of so much work … and the inability to focus on some key things.” The end user “Bill of Rights” contains the following sections: Right to reasonable Dodd-Frank implementation; right to legal certainty; right to compete in the markets; right to safe accounts; right to have confidence in the markets; rights to clear (or not to clear); right to margin flexibility and reasonable capital rules; rights to hedge; right to smart regulation and the right to be heard. The document can be found at www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/chiltonstatement040313.

Senate Farm Bill Markup to Begin this Month; No Word on House Action

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is ready to move on her committee’s 2013 Farm Bill this month. Several reports indicate she plans to hold an April markup on a comprehensive five-year Farm Bill, and is targeting the week of April 15 or the week of April 22. The goal is to have committee work completed before Congress leaves for a one-week recess April 26. While Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has not publicly commented on his panel’s markup schedule, he continues to pledge his commitment to getting a bill out early – “and I’m confident the president will sign a Farm Bill this year” – and members of the ag panel have been telling their hometown audiences a Farm Bill is coming. It’s expected that Lucas will once again let Stabenow take the lead on Farm Bill drafting, and that both committees will start with their 2012 Farm Bills. The full Senate easily approved Stabenow’s initial bipartisan bill; the House Ag Committee approved its bill, but was blocked by leadership from a floor vote. The main sticking points for both committees continue to be direct farm program payments and whether or not the Senate will accede to southern demands for marketing loans and deficiency payments; when or if commodity groups will reach on consensus on how to re-invent those payment programs, and how deep the cuts to food stamps will go. 

Gillibrand to Introduce Dairy Pricing Reform Act

Joining with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she’s introduced “The Dairy Pricing Reform Act,” a plan, she says, will provide a “fair safety net” for small producers while improving inventory reporting and transparency. Gillibrand, who represents a state where dairy is her number one agriculture industry, said hay and grain shortages and high fuel costs have decimated New York dairy production, leading to a sell-off of nearly 65,000 cows in the state. The Gillibrand bill requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to hold hearings and restructure the dairy pricing system, while directing the secretary to make recommendations to Congress, including competitive pay pricing or shifting from a Class 4 system to a Class 2 system on dairy prices. Further, she’s pushing a separate bill – the Dairy Income Fairness Act – that requires the federal government to guarantee farmers with 200 cows or less a $6.50 margin. The margin is calculated by deducting the cost of feed from the cost of milk, and exempting the first 200 cows from supply management. The current Milk Income Loss Contract would be extended for nine months and payments would be pegged to inflation. On inventory reporting, Gillibrand contends certain cheese inventories “influence trading activity” on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, while at the same time cold storage inventories are not currently reported except for minor voluntary reporting. Her bill would make reporting to USDA mandatory and would give USDA the authority to audit warehouse inventories. Finally, “to provide more transparency to dairy cooperatives,” Gillibrand would require cooperatives that engage in bloc voting to give member farmers written notice when votes are held and requires each milk marketing order to set up an “information clearinghouse” to notify producers when proposed milk marketing orders reforms are expected.

EPA Moves to Cut Sulfur in Gasoline by 60 Percent

Saying the move will prevent respiratory illness in children, reduce smog and soot, “while enabling efficiency improvements in the cars and trucks we drive,” the Environmental Protection Agency released its proposed rule on Tier 3 emissions standards to cut sulfur levels in gasoline by 60 percent by 2017. This would leave allowable sulfur at about 10 parts per million. The proposal also seeks to cut nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, set a 70-percent tighter particulate standard, reduce fuel vapor emissions and cut other vehicle emissions by up to 40 percent. The American Lung Association says this move is the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off the road, but critics of the rulemaking – including parts of the automobile and oil industries – say the proposal is costly, unnecessary and will lead to higher gasoline prices. The proposal is also drawing its share of bipartisan praise and criticism, with critics saying the science underlying the EPA proposal is flawed. EPA says the health benefits outweigh the costs, estimating the sulfur standard would cost less than 1 cent per gallon of gas, with an overall average vehicle cost of $125 by 2025.

Governors Promise Support for RFS

The 30 governors who comprise the Governor’s Biofuels Coalition have sent a letter to Congress urging members to not repeal or change the federal Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates how much biofuel must be blended with gasoline on a yearly basis. The Iowa Biodiesel Board – Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is chairman of the coalition – called the letter, “a bold statement of refusal to back down to the unrelenting false accusations leveled by opponents of biofuels.” The letter says, “We’re proud of the fact that since the passage of the RFS, the U.S. has reversed the course of our dependence on imported oil. As governors we see firsthand the impact of that the RFS has had on our states, and we urge you to reject any modifications to the RFS.”

Class I Rails not Happy with Klobuchar Antitrust Exemption Bill

Saying it will create “conflicts and uncertainty” for railroads, rail customers and the courts, the Association of American Railroads said it “strongly objects” to legislation introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to repeal the decades-old antitrust exemption enjoyed by rails. Ed Hamberger, AAR president, said the bill is written to override existing regulatory decisions and reverse government-approved transactions in the industry. Hamberger said the Klobuchar-Vitter bill would undermine the railroads’ ability to “sustain private investments in rail infrastructure.” “Freight rails have invested more than $526 billion in private capital over the past three decades – half a trillion dollars – into America’s rail infrastructure so taxpayers didn’t have to,” Hamberger said. “A regulatory environment that encourages private investment should remain a priority.” Several rail customer coalitions praised the bill, with the American Chemistry Council saying the bill “removes the freight industry’s obsolete exemptions from the nation’s antitrust laws to help promote fairness and competition in the rail industry.”

More Than 10,000 Pesticides Approved by EPA with “Flawed Process:” NRDC

Calling them “untested or under-tested,” the Natural Resources Defense Council says it’s completed a two-year investigation revealing the federal government has “potentially threatened public health” by allowing more than 10,000 pesticides on the market. NRDC is calling for major reforms to the ag chemical approval process, particularly for toxic pesticides. NRDC says the agency has “improperly used a regulatory loophole” known as “conditional approval” to give approval to the majority of the pesticides. The environmental group says the Environmental Protection Agency can’t track the chemicals approved conditionally to ensure toxicity data has been submitted and whether that data leads to a cancellation of the chemical or a major change in how or where the chemical can be used. NRDC “calls on EPA to take six corrective actions” including review all conditional registrations to ensure they’re legal; immediately cancel pesticide registrations with overdue studies or those that pose a risk to the public; properly track conditional registrations to provide transparency; set up a public comment process for conditional approvals; make “all submitted data accessible to public review” and grant future conditional approvals “only in rare cases.” More on the NRDC study can be found at www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/flawed-epa-approval-process.asp.