National Wildlife Federation Opposes Farm Bill

“This bill is a recipe for disaster for wildlife”
WASHINGTON, DC (May 12) – The National Wildlife Federation today announced its opposition to final passage of the farm bill. The House-Senate Conference Committee completed
their work on reauthorization of the farm bill last Thursday and indicated a vote on final passage is likely in the House this Wednesday.

“This farm bill is a recipe for disaster for wildlife,” said Larry Schweiger, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Our Congressional leaders have put forth a bill that jeopardizes wildlife, slashes investments to key conservation programs, and fans the flames of global warming.”

The final bill includes drastic cuts in funding for the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Programs and includes a permanent disaster fund for farmers that would encourage the destruction of native grasslands. Combined with last year’s ethanol mandate that would more than double corn ethanol production, this bill establishes unprecedented opportunity for habitat destruction in the United States.

“The farm bill creates a perfect storm for the destruction of habitat and the aggravation of global warming,” said Schweiger. “We have no choice but to call on Congress to reject this farm bill
and demand changes that keep this bill from becoming a conservation nightmare.”

The combination of a new permanent disaster program in the final bill and a greatly weakened “Sodsaver” provision are especially problematic for waterfowl, pheasants and other game birds
that rely on healthy grassland and wetland habitat. These provisions in the bill also undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a change from both the House and Senate
versions of the bill passed last year, which included a stronger

“Sodsaver” provision to deny eligibility for crop insurance and disaster bailouts to newly broken native grasslands. “Congress is essentially giving farmers an iron clad guarantee that no matter how dry or marginal the land they break to farm, they will be bailed out if they plant crops that fail,” said Schweiger. “At a time when the Senate is considering legislation to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions, it is foolish to promote such nearsighted practices at taxpayer expense.”

The General Accountability Office cited the availability of crop insurance and disaster payments
as a key factor in decisions by farmers to bust up and plant native grassland areas, even beforethe new permanent disaster program was available. Every acre of native grassland that is put into
cropping releases between 45 and 54 tons of carbon dioxide.
Native grasslands are one of the most endangered ecosystems in the United States. Less than one
percent of the country’s pre-settlement prairies remain and grassland birds are the fastest
declining species group. Once broken out for agriculture, these systems can never be fully
restored. The financial incentives in the bill to plough native grasslands will also destroy
important habitat for species that are being considered for listing under the Endangered Species
Act.

“Sage-grouse populations have already been severely impacted by energy development in the West,” said Ben Deeble, National Wildlife Federation sage grouse biologist. “Without sodsaver,
thousands of acres of sage-grouse habitat in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and other western states will be put to the plow and destroyed. Listing sage-grouse under the Endangered
Species Act will likely be unavoidable.”

The Farm Bill also includes a 7 million acre cut in the Conservation Reserve Program cap (from
39.2 million to 32 million acres). This means approximately 3 million more acres would have to be taken out of the program before any additional marginal land can be enrolled. Already, more
than 2.6 million acres have come out of the program in recent years as commodity prices escalated and USDA-offered rental rates were kept low to convince farmers to re-enroll when their contracts expired.

“Loss of 5 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program lands back to the plow would release of around 225 million tons of carbon dioxide,” said Schweiger.

Another key conservation program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, will be cut by 25 percent, despite an enormous backlog of frequently flooded lands that farmers would like to restore to
beneficial use as wetlands.

“The Wetlands Reserve Program is the most successful wetlands program in our country,” said Julie Sibbing, NWF’s Senior Program Manager for Agriculture and Wetlands Policy. “Cutting
back the acres available for this program will mean thousands of lost opportunities for restoring wetlands for wildlife and continued crop insurance and disaster bailouts for those whose land frequently floods but cannot get into the program.”

“We recognize there are some positive aspects of the bill including new tax credits for farmers, and ranchers to help conserve endangered species and a new voluntary public access program
that enhances hunting opportunities on private lands,” said Schweiger. “We also know that the farm bill is an essential vehicle for meeting the needs of the poor and providing a safety net for
farmers. But America cannot afford a farm bill that increases global warming pollution, decimates wildlife habitat and undermines decades of conservation progress.”

- 30 -

The National Wildlife Federation is America’s conservation organization protecting wildlife for our children’s future. www.nwf.org

Contact: Julie Sibbing, (202) 797-6832 or (703) 403-4676, sibbing@nwf.org




•





Pandering at pump: Gas-tax holiday is politics at its worst
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 05/06/2008 05:59:39 PM MDT


Why would a politician promulgate policy that would boost gasoline consumption, enrich Big Oil, increase dependence on foreign crude, hasten global warming, rob the federal highway trust fund and threaten thousands of jobs?
Actually, there are two short and simple answers to that long-winded question: 1) It's an election year. 2) John McCain and Hillary Clinton are trying to buy your vote.
The proposal for a federal gas tax holiday this summer, contrary to the candidates' claims, is not an honest, earnest attempt to alleviate the plight of the poor.
It's pure political pandering, as Barack Obama points out. At best, it would put a few pennies in your pocket if Congress approves this foolish proposal.
Economists say the idea flies in the face of the law of supply and demand. In times of constricted supply, like now, the price rises to a level necessary to reduce the demand to meet the available supply. If you lower the price by suspending the tax, the demand increases, a shortage is created, and the price goes back up. Only the oil industry gains.
And, even if it did work - the extra supply appeared from thin air, or the oil companies declined to charge what the market will bear - the costs would outweigh the benefits.
McCain said the tax holiday would allow the poorest Americans to "maybe travel a little bit." If that's true, the policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
would be encouraging the consumption of gasoline, contradicting the candidate's commitment to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and combat climate change.
Clinton estimates the average consumer would save $70 over the summer if the 18.4 cent federal tax on a gallon of gas and the 24.4 cent tax on a gallon of diesel fuel were removed. But it would cost the federal highway trust fund an estimated $9 billion, a reduction that, according to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, would jeopardize 300,000 highway-related jobs.
A windfall tax on oil company profits, Clinton said, would be used to restore the fund. That's assuming Congress would approve the tax. McCain said he would replenish the fund with other tax revenue. But that would require cuts to other programs.
If you scrape the veneer from this proposal, its rotten to the core. It's not sound public policy; it's political pandering at its worst, and Congress should reject the idea.
If McCain and Clinton really want to solve our nation's energy problems, they'll pump more money into renewable energy resources, not more gas into American cars.

---

Posted at 11:54 AM | Permalink

Read more – offline – from the current issue; subscribe to FRR.