Abandoned Mines Land Program

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund was established to provide money to states to eliminate the hazards to public health and safety and the environment created by coal mine sites that have not been restored. It is funded by reclamation fees collected from coal mine operators. Contributions made to this trust fund are appropriated by Congress to states with reclamation plans approved by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)-.  Funds may be spent on the reclamation and restoration of land and water resources and related expenses.

In order to insure the stability of the program and to build on its accomplishments, the National Conference of State Legislatures urges Congress to appropriate the entire amount of money annually deposited in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.

August 2009

Agricultural Trade

America's farms and ranches currently export approximately 30 percent of their production.  These exports buttress the nation's balance of payments and are important to the well-being of the entire American economy.  Farm exports are essential to the financial health of American agriculture and to the economic development of American states.

However, the agriculture sector is no longer a net positive for America’s balance of payments and 2005 saw an historic change.  For the first time in over a century, Americans spent more on imported foods and spirits from abroad than farmers were able to sell overseas.  This change only underscores the importance of agriculture in trade negotiations and the need to open foreign markets to American agricultural products.

Trade Agreements

Protectionist trade practices and export subsidies of other countries often effectively limit American agricultural exports.  The United States and its trading partners therefore should seek agreements that reduce and eventually eliminate the reliance on protectionist trade policies and practices.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports the federal government’s efforts to negotiate trade agreements that secure free and open access to overseas markets for American agricultural products.  In this connection, NCSL supports the President’s ability to negotiate trade agreements in accordance with the federalism and policy principles outlined in NCSL’s Presidential Trade Promotion Authority policy.

In negotiating new agreements, special attention should be placed on import quotas that thwart international trade opportunities.

Trade negotiations also should result in provisions that will speed resolution of cross-border disputes while respecting American values of due process and federalism.

The Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations has opened new discussions regarding agricultural trade and the trade-distorting effects of subsidies.  While talks are laborious and tenuous, NCSL supports the federal government’s efforts to work through these multilateral negotiations to open markets that are currently closed to U.S. products and to reduce the use of trade-distorting subsidies.  State legislators recognize that some U.S. trading partners view some current U.S. farm support programs as trade-distorting under WTO rules.  NCSL recognizes the importance of rural development supports while acknowledging the need to design such farm programs so that they do not conflict with WTO rules.  With this in mind, NCSL looks forward to an active engagement with congressional leaders, U.S. negotiators, and USDA officials regarding how these programs can be better designed to support rural prosperity while also complying with U.S. trade obligations. Further, NCSL encourages the Congress and the Administration to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance programs or efforts to convert farm supports to non-trade distorting support programs, such as environmental conservation, local food purchasing, conversion to biofuel crops, alternate crop conversion, or expansion of non-farm income generating opportunities in order to help America’s farm communities adapt, adjust to, and fully exploit new agricultural markets.

In addition to global negotiations under the WTO, NCSL supports bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that similarly open markets to American agricultural exports.

State legislators are nonetheless concerned that U.S. offers in these negotiations could unexpectedly and adversely affect state economies.  The federal government should notify the states of any potential impacts that U.S. subsidy reductions may have on regions, jobs, or tax bases.

While expanded international trade in agricultural products as a result of new trade agreements creates new opportunities for American exports and increased revenues, it also creates new burdens for both federal and state agriculture inspection and quarantine services.  NCSL calls upon the federal government to support training for inspection professionals and the development of new technologies to secure the health and safety of imported foods and agricultural products.

If any of our trading partners refuse to remove unnecessary trade barriers or persist in violations of international trade laws and agreements, the President should  restrict their imports of agricultural products or livestock into this country.  Similarly, NCSL supports the federal government’s decision to challenge some of our trading partners’ decisions regarding the importation of genetically modified foods.

Market Development

To enhance agricultural exports, Congress and the Administration should support an aggressive market development effort for agricultural products, including the use of export credits.  Emphasis should be placed on developing markets for high-value products.

In addition to traditional commodity sales programs, food aid can be a valuable tool in market development.  Current programs, however, should be redirected to encourage, rather than to discourage, the development of local food security in nations facing food shortages.  Surplus stocks of grain and other commodities should be used for distribution to less-developed nations.

Trade Embargoes

In order to recapture and maintain foreign markets, the United States must demonstrate that it is a reliable supplier.  To ensure that past mistakes in the use of foreign trade embargoes are not repeated, NCSL opposes any embargo of agricultural products, unless that embargo includes all trade with the target country.  NCSL supports the dissolution of the embargo on exports to Cuba for food products and medicine.

Trade Policy Development

The Secretary of Agriculture and other public officials representing agriculture should be included as full and equal partners in the formulation of United States policies affecting foreign trade.  USDA should in turn cooperate with state agricultural trade officials in a coordinated effort to promote agricultural exports.  State legislatures, both directly and through NCSL, should be consulted on the development of trade policies and kept abreast of evaluations of their efficacy and economic impact.  In particular, NCSL supports the appointment of one or more state legislators to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Agriculture Policy Advisory Committee (APAC).

Export Finance

Existing agricultural export finance programs and other financing institutions, such as the Export-Import Bank, should be bolstered to assist American producers in capturing foreign agriculture sales.

Grain Quality

The National Conference of State Legislatures urges the Congress to monitor closely the impact of the recent reforms in grain quality standards.  Additional legislative remedies should be considered if American farmers lose sales because of the sale of commodities which, although they meet legal standards, are nonetheless inferior in quality to foreign grain exports.

Further, NCSL encourages efforts to stem the costs of export grain inspection, while maintaining the integrity and quality of American exports.  Proposals for third party inspection, provided that USDA supervision of the inspection and weighing systems remains, and that states who currently do or wish to perform inspections retain their exclusive authority to do so, could benefit American producers.

Free Trade in Agricultural Products

The National Conference of State Legislatures urges the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Department of State, and the United States Trade Representative to take all measures necessary to open foreign markets to bulk and value-added agricultural commodities from the states.  Trade distorting policies must be eliminated so that American farmers may compete fairly in the world marketplace.  The federal government should work to lower these trade barriers, identify specific procedures for quick settlement to border disputes, and encourage international commerce in the area of agriculture.

August 2009

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act Implementation

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports the goals embodied in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The CAAA represent a major step toward addressing important environmental, air quality, and public health issues. NCSL fully supports CAAA goals and urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to proceed diligently with full implementation of the law to achieve clean air for our citizens. It is essential that Congress and the EPA fulfill their responsibilities to facilitate implementation by the states.

NCSL makes the following recommendations:

• Implementation of the CAAA is the responsibility of the states, who have a wealth of experience in implementing control programs. NCSL encourages Congress and the EPA to pay particular attention to the voices of that state expertise and experience.
• Communication with state legislators is of utmost importance because only state legislators can enact enabling legislation for state programs and appropriate state funds. Congress and the EPA should regularly and directly work with state legislators during federal action on air quality issues.
• EPA should work closely with states to ensure states have all regulations, technical assistance and funding necessary for compliance.
• Federal grants authorized under the CAAA provide financial resources to the states for development and implementation of air quality programs and other clean air responsibilities. Congress and the EPA must ensure that states continue to receive adequate funding to cover all costs of program management including monitoring.
• Because the states have existing air pollution control programs to administer with current federal funding, any new air quality programs or responsibilities mandated by Congress or EPA should be accompanied by additional federal funding.
• The CAAA contain many sweeping and general mandates which will involve the exercise of broad discretion and interpretation by the EPA for their implementation. NCSL urges EPA to provide as much administrative flexibility as the law allows in order to achieve clean air goals in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
• Cost-effectiveness should be permitted as a factor in state selection of transportation control measures and emissions control strategies.
• Numerous sections of the CAAA require the EPA to develop regulations and technical guidance for the states to follow in their implementation process. The regulations and guidance are essential to state efforts to implement complete and adequate state programs that fully comply with the CAAA. Often the EPA is very late in publishing regulations and technical guidance for state programs and responsibilities. Such delays leave little or no time between the publication of the documents and the statutory deadlines for state compliance. NCSL urges EPA to meet all deadlines for publication of documents required under the CAAA. NCSL urges Congress to amend the law to replace statutory deadlines for state action with language that provides a specific time period for state compliance after document publication.
• NCSL urges EPA to act expeditiously to enact the required regulations necessary to reduce emissions from federally preempted sources.  Failure to act to require emission reductions from federally preempted sources can impede a state’s ability to achieve attainment in some areas despite any and all actions available to a state in development of their state implementation plans.
• EPA should provide training opportunities for states to help develop the skills and understanding needed to properly implement the CAAA. In addition, EPA should provide informational resources to help the public understand its role in achieving CAAA goals.
• To address ozone nonattainment problems, the CAAA require significant nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions to be obtained from both stationary and mobile sources. Since any reductions that are not obtained from mobile sources must be obtained from stationary sources, Congress and EPA should take maximum advantage of tools and strategies to reduce emissions from mobile sources including but not limited to promoting alternative fuels and encouraging strict exhaust standards for light duty vehicles.
• Federal highway legislation should be made consistent with CAAA objectives. The EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) should work together to ensure coordination of federal policy.
• NCSL urges the adoption of national energy, transportation and other policy that emphasizes energy conservation in order to help achieve the goals of the CAAA. This should include strengthening of emission standards for automobiles as technologies improve, more energy-efficient lighting, buildings, and transportation, and more research and use of alternative forms of energy.
• NCSL urges the federal government to expeditiously apply the same CAAA requirements to federal facilities and motor vehicle fleets that are required for state facilities and fleets.

Sanctions

• States should not be sanctioned for non-compliance if state's failure to comply was the result of EPA's failure to adhere to CAAA deadlines for promulgation of regulations or technical guidance that provide details and requirements of state programs.
• EPA should have the authority to waive sanctions on states that EPA determines are making reasonable good faith efforts to comply with CAAA requirements and deadlines.

Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

• States should be granted flexibility to design inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs that achieve air quality targets and should receive full credit for emissions reductions those programs achieve.
• Congress and EPA should not require the states to use specific I/M technologies. Such rigid federal requirements may fail to account for technological advances in emissions testing programs and equipment.  

Low Emission Vehicles and Zero Emission Vehicles

• EPA should maintain national Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards, referred to as the 49-state car, that are stricter than the law requires. States should be allowed, but not required, to adopt Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) requirements.  

Transportation Conformity with State Air Quality Plans

• NCSL supports the principles underlying transportation conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act that requires new or revised state transportation implementation plans (TIPs) to conform to the purpose of state air quality plans, also referred to as state implementation plans (SIPs).
• Adequate funding should be made available to cover the cost of the resource-intensive requirements for development, revision and implementation of conforming TIPs.
• In evaluating the emissions budgets submitted by states, EPA should ensure state flexibility in balancing the burden of reduction among all air pollution sources.
• Conformity requirements should be limited to nonattainment areas and areas at risk of becoming nonattainment.

August 2009

Alternative Fuels and Alternatively Fueled Vehicles

The National Conference of State Legislatures urges the federal government to encourage an increase in the research, development and promotion of alternative fuels derived from domestic sources and alternatively fueled vehicles, including their commercial production and use, and to devote federal funds to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of alternative fuels and alternatively fueled vehicles. Alternative fuels and alternatively fueled vehicles can reduce the level of toxic and other emissions from vehicular use, reduce our dependence on imported oil, improve our national security, help to balance our trade deficit and help cities, counties and local governments comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments and other legislative mandates. This research, development and promotion of alternative fuels and alternatively fueled vehicles should have as its primary purposes reducing the level of air pollutants and other emissions, reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and providing a low cost, reliable energy source.

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) attempt to address the issue of air quality by requiring states and regional authorities to develop comprehensive plans to control air pollution. A significant number of metropolitan areas in the United States have been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as not meeting health based standards for carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, ozone and sulfur oxides, particulates and other pollutants. According to the EPA, much of the pollution in these nonattainment areas can be directly traced to mobile source emissions. By themselves, traditional methods apparently are no longer capable of effectively ameliorating the increasingly negative impact of these emissions. As a result, NCSL recommends the exploration and evaluation of all forms of alternative domestic fuels and alternatively fueled vehicles in order to reduce the incidence of toxic air emissions. NCSL recommends caution in   promoting the replacement of traditional fuels  with alternative fuels that could result in other pollution problems.

NCSL supports a federal Clean Alternative Fuels program that includes but is not necessarily limited to methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, reformulated gasoline, ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and hydrogen or other power source (including electricity).  However, NCSL recommends that this program take into account other uses of source products, i.e. grains, when making recommendations for fuel usage or setting new national standards.

NCSL is concerned that the further development of alternative domestic fuels, alternatively fueled vehicles and conservation devices will depend, at least in the near future, upon the continued availability of tax credits designed to encourage investment in these technologies.

While tax credits and exemptions are important to the creation of an alternative fuels market, NCSL recognizes their negative fiscal impact on the overall federal budget, as well as inequities in the Highway Trust Fund. Consequently, NCSL urges Congress to encourage the use of alternative fuels through incentives that will increase the production and development of new vehicles with alternative fuels capability and vehicle conversion, in lieu of alternative fuels tax exemptions. Federal tax credits available to alternative fuel production facilities should be extended for a limited time. Congress is urged to phase out the tax credits for the research and development of alternative domestic fuels and alternatively fueled vehicles when the technology or changing policies relating to petroleum-based fuels makes the product competitive in the market place. In an effort to mitigate the state-specific impact of these and other federal policy changes, states should retain taxing authority to ensure that alternative fuels are competitively priced.

NCSL believes that the development, promotion and use of alternative fuels derived from domestic sources and alternatively fueled vehicles is consistent with the primary goals of a national energy policy that calls for the most efficient use of energy, a comprehensive energy conservation strategy and the development and promotion of alternative renewable energy sources.

NCSL believes that there should be no warranty invalidation incurred by a provider if ASTM standards are met for the fuel and the vehicle is approved for that fuel.

In areas required under CAAA to utilize reformulated oxygenated fuels, selection of alternative fuel additives should be left to the discretion of the affected state, where costs, safety, and economic and environmental impacts can be considered.

With regards to fuel additives, NCSL recommends the following:

• Prior to approval of fuel additives, U.S. EPA should examine public health benefits and cross-media implications.
• Any fuel requirements should be in the form of performance-based goals. No specific chemicals or other additives should be prescribed in order to maximize state flexibility to achieve the goals.
• Any fuel requirement should be based on anticipated air quality benefits.

August 2009

Aquatic Nuisance Species

One of the most significant threats to biodiversity in the nations coastal and estuarine habitats as well as inland navigable waters is the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic invasive species (AIS) into the ecosystem. The introduction of AIS, also know as aquatic nuisance species (ANS), through intentional or accidental means establishes a stress on ecosystems that can result in the decline of native species population, serve as a impediment to species recovery and pose a long-term economic and ecological health of the area.  The control and management of these AIS in such areas as the Great Lakes, Mississippi River Watershed, Everglades, and San Francisco Bay/Inland Delta costs the economy billions of dollars annually.

NCSL commends Congress and the federal government’s recognition of this problem and efforts to address it through enactment of the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-332).  The establishment of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is in accordance with NCSL’s belief that federal water policy should make use of a coordinating body to improve efforts to administer the government’s responsibilities as carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Oceanic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

As a part of their authority and responsibility for water resources management individual states have moved forward with state based programs to combat aquatic nuisance species and their introduction into state waters. These programs supplement the national activity and are indicative of an ongoing need for resources and action to reduce the threat and minimize the impacts of aquatic nuisance species on U.S. waters.

To that end, NCSL calls on Congress to:

• reauthorize the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990;
• provide for improved means for controlling the introduction of aquatic nuisance species;
• increased the support for national efforts to control and manage aquatic nuisance species; and
• increase research and technical assistance resources available to federal, state, and local officials.

August 2009

Animal Identification

The 2002 discovery of a single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a Canadian born cow within the borders of the United States has spurred debate on the establishment of a verifiable national animal identification program.  The USDA has now put into place the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a voluntary system with three components: premises registration, animal identification, and animal identification and tracking or tracing.  The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recognizes that such a program could be beneficial in helping maintain domestic and international consumer confidence in the safety of the United States meat supply.  NCSL also believes such a system, if properly implemented in cooperation with the Governments of the states and territories, could be an invaluable tool in helping control any future outbreak of infectious disease while serving as a important firewall against any attempted terrorist attack on the food production system in the United States.

While there are many benefits to the implementation of such a system, the National Conference of State Legislatures also understands, as with most Federal programs, that “the devil is in the details.”  NCSL strongly believes that several issues must be addressed in any final system if it is to be of benefit to the country as a whole, if it is to be consistent with the principles of our federalist system and not an unfunded mandates on the states, and if it is not to be a financial burden to individual farmers and ranchers.  We believe that to reach this goal, the following must be discussed and addressed:

Any program must be designed and implemented in full consultation with state legislatures to ensure proper attention to public interest and financial considerations.

Any program must be designed and implemented in cooperation with the departments of agriculture of the states and territories.  USDA must work to insure that any animal identification system is compatible with the current inspection and enforcement systems of the state governments.  This program also must be largely, if not completely federally funded and not result in yet another unfunded mandate on the already strained budgets of the various states.

Any program must be designed and implemented with an eye toward the least possible cost to individual producers.  Recent increases in live animal prices have given farmers and ranchers the ability to replace equity lost over the last decade of low prices.  We do not need an additional layer of regulatory cost to be born solely by the meat producers of  the United States which could eliminate profits in favorable times and exacerbate loses in times of low prices.

Any program should encourage shared responsibility throughout the meat industry and should encourage full participation by all sections of the industry.

Producers and processors should be provided adequate liability and privacy protection.

An educational and outreach component should be established within the program in conjunction with state cooperative extensions services to help inform producers and consumers about the system.

International imports and exports must be included in the final identification system to provide adequate protections for both the security of the domestic food system and to help ensure consumer confidence.  Identifying both live animals and processed product moving across international borders is essential if any system is to be seamless and successful.  Labeling of such product is necessary for trace back ability.

NCSL applauds the actions taken by USDA to maintain consumer confidence, domestically and internationally, in the U.S. supply of meat.  We hope, however, that as we continue to consider further action on a national animal identification system, that a productive dialogue resulting in a workable, fully funded system is put in place and that the concerns of the states are fully addressed.  We look forward to working with the federal government to reach this goal.

August 2010

Beginner Farmer Programs

America's family farmers have recently experienced financial distress caused by low commodity prices, drought and a slowdown in world demand for agricultural exports. In many cases, adversity has been so severe that farmers have been forced out of agricultural production. Others have been discouraged from beginning farming. The National Conference of State Legislatures supports a state-federal partnership to confront these challenges, including the use of federal tax incentives to support state-based development and loan programs.

To improve opportunities for new entrants into the farming profession many states administer "beginner farmer" programs. These programs typically involve no direct appropriations, but instead apply a federal income tax exemption to loans made to first-time purchasers of farm land, agricultural equipment and livestock. The tax savings to banks participating in the programs provide an incentive to reduce the interest rates charged to qualifying farmers. Favorable terms not only improve credit access for beginner farmers but also facilitate the development of long-term relationships that benefit rural communities.

Despite the success of state beginner farmer programs, the federal Internal Revenue Code currently includes provisions that have limited their use. While the total amount of federal tax revenue associated with these programs is relatively small, they have effectively stymied beginner farmer programs in many states.

The National Conference of State Legislatures supports changes to the federal Internal Revenue code that reduce borrowing costs to qualifying farmers and strengthen state beginner farmer programs. For example in 1996, the agricultural bond program was expanded to allow state loan programs to finance beginner farmer purchases of agricultural property from grandparents, parents or siblings. The definition of first-time farmer was also revised, so someone may own as much as 30 pecent of their county median farm size and still be eligible for a beginner farmer loan.

NCSL supports building on these steps by exempting agricultural bonds from the federal volume cap placed on industrial revenue bonds in each state. Currently, agricultural bonds must compete with large industrial and housing projects in each state for the limited volume cap allocated by the federal government. As a result many states cannot meet the demand for agricultural bonds. Other states are prevented from offering them altogether because their state's volume cap is already allocated for other purposes. In addition to an exemption for agricultural bonds, NCSL supports raising the total volume of state bonding authority to free resources for beginner farmer programs if achieved in a manner consistent with a balanced federal budget.

NCSL recommends that the President and U.S. Congress amend the federal Internal Revenue Code to make the use of agricultural bonds more attractive to banks and other financial institutions. Specifically, these institutions should be able to deduct interest expense associated with their purchase of tax-exempt bonds that support beginner farmer programs. NCSL also recommends that the federal government permit deductibility for loans financed by issuers that are not necessarily small issuers as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, since many states use larger authorities to issue tax-exempt obligations for beginner farmer programs. NCSL believes that these measures would benefit beginner farmers by increasing the availability of agricultural bonds and competition between financial institutions

August 2008

Brownfields Redevelopment

Brownfields programs are intended to revitalize former industrial and commercial sites that may be contaminated, unused and often abandoned, when the contamination is determined to be a substantial obstacle to the redevelopment of the sites. There are thousands of domestic brownfields sites, many of which have housed thriving industrial enterprises located in areas that are now economically disadvantaged. Today, many of these sites are a burden on the local economy and can be a threat to public health.

Expansion or redevelopment of brownfield sites is often complicated because of the actual or perceived presence of a hazardous substance or petroleum released into the surface or subsurface soil or ground water that poses a risk to human health and the environment. Often these sites are not developed because new users fear the potential liability associated with residual hazardous substances or petroleum contamination. To avoid potential liability, new industrial and commercial projects often are located in "greenfields" sites.

Brownfields redevelopment can revitalize communities and businesses while discouraging urban sprawl. Redevelopment of brownfields sites provides real opportunities to revitalize communities, create new jobs, increase the tax base and facilitate managed growth.

NCSL believes that federal legislation, statutes and regulations should:

• Define brownfields so as to separate them from those Superfund sites or sites with sufficient contamination to be concerned about potential future off-site impacts or potential future use.
• Allow states to determine whether or not a site is a brownfield against a Federal statutory definition and, if a state determines that a brownfield site is free of contamination or can be cleaned enough for a designated, deed restricted use, a state should be authorized to immunize a property owner or developer from liability or a future cleanup responsibility. That state action should immunize the developer from future federal cleanup liability if that party did not contribute to contamination.
• Acknowledge that States have primary responsibility for brownfields redevelopment programs. States should be allowed flexibility to determine all aspects of the state brownfields programs in order to tailor programs to meet their unique needs. For example, some states may set flexible cleanup standards tailored to the future use of the redeveloped property.
•  Grandfather existing state programs. In addition, federal legislation should maintain the memorandums of agreement relating to brownfields between states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
•  Provide states with federal financial assistance, including funds that may be used as grants or as capitalization money for state revolving loan funds, for brownfields and brownfields redevelopment programs. To the extent federal financial assistance is provided for brownfields programs, states should be allowed flexibility regarding expenditure of these funds.
• NCSL opposes efforts to incorporate brownfields legislation with other substantive changes to the Federal Superfund law.  Brownfields legislation should be free standing and relate only to the narrow purpose of allowing states to redevelop abandoned, underutilized industrial and commercial property for which there is minimum likelihood of off-site contamination or endangerment of health and welfare of subsequent users and not used as a means to achieve other Superfund related agendas.

August 2009

Children's Environmental Health

NCSL recognizes that children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental exposures because they are in a dynamic state of growth, with many vital systems not fully developed upon birth. As these systems develop through childhood, environmental toxicants can disrupt this process.

Children may have greater exposures to environmental toxicants than adults because children drink more water, eat more food and breathe more air than adults on a pound-for-pound basis, thus experiencing greater exposures to environmental toxicants if they are present.

Normal developmental behaviors such as hand-to-mouth activity and crawling on the ground or floor increase the exposures of children through ingestion and contact with dusts and residues.

The inability of children to metabolize, detoxify and excrete certain toxicants often leaves their bodies less able than adults to cope with environmental toxicants and thus more likely to be adversely or permanently injured.

Federal environmental health regulations are largely based on data from research on adult humans or animals. NCSL believes these regulations require more and better data about the unique exposure patterns and sensitivities of children. There are many chemicals in commercial and residential use, whose toxicity, especially in children, is poorly understood at best.

Recognizing the need to develop environmental protection programs for children, especially those in the most vulnerable populations such as low income and racial/ethnic communities, NCSL supports consideration of the sensitivity of children to environmental contamination in all federal environmental policy, legislation and regulation and supports policies that will result in reducing the exposure of children to environmental hazards.

NCSL supports federal funding for health research on the effects of exposure of children to environmental toxicants, and consistent reporting and tracking of birth defects, cancer, and other relevant diseases in children.

August 2009

Clean Diesel

Over the past decade, progress has been made with curbing diesel fuel emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule and a 2000 rule requiring the reduction of sulfur levels in highway diesel fuel stand as two significant examples. State anti-idling and state diesel inspection and maintenance programs, the federal Clean School Bus USA program and Voluntary Diesel Retrofit program and various private sector initiatives further serve as critical examples of efforts that are of enormous benefit to the public health, the economy and the environment and assist states with meeting Clean Air Act ambient air quality standards.

To produce even greater environmental and health benefits and to assist states with managing local nonattainment problems, the National Conference of State Legislatures believes that funding should be substantially increased and provided for the federal Clean Diesel Initiative, Voluntary Retrofit efforts and the Clean School Bus USA program. NCSL further believes that the EPA should maximize efforts to ensure that diesel-fueled vehicles entering the United States from bordering and other foreign countries should meet or exceed U.S. and state environmental standards.

August 2008

Cradle to Grave Electronics Management

NCSL has long recognized that technology and technology equipment are important and essential to US participation in the global economy.  NCSL has long recognized the need to manage solid waste in an environmentally, economically, and politically acceptable manner.  As outlined in its Solid Waste Management policy, NCSL believes that source reduction and recycling offer the most economically and environmentally sound methods for dealing with a significant percentage of the solid waste stream.

August 2009

---

Crop Insurance

State legislatures and the federal government share the goal of a vibrant rural economy and preservation of the family farm.  In the past several years, weather events and weakness in the price of some agricultural commodities have beset the rural economy and magnified the need for producers to effectively manage risk.  Contract production, derivatives and crop insurance have provided producers with some protection and price stability.  However, these tools have not alleviated a reliance on federal ad hoc disaster programs.  By their nature, these programs are unpredictable and, at best, offer producers short-term relief from natural disasters and economic downturns.

In an increasingly competitive international marketplace, American producers must have access to a range of risk management tools.  Central to this goal, NCSL supports a state-federal partnership to develop a fair and affordable crop insurance program that complements other risk management tools available in the marketplace for all crops.  NCSL supports an efficient program that reduces reliance on ad hoc relief programs and promotes informed production and management decisions.  NCSL also supports federal efforts to encourage private-sector development of innovative risk management tools.  However, any plan for crop insurance must not adversely impact a state's ability to levy premium taxes, regulate the business of private insurance and set solvency standards for private crop insurers.

August 2008

Energy Regionalism

The United States has historically enjoyed low energy and gasoline prices.  However, in recent years, increases in gasoline prices, home heating oil, natural gas prices and electricity prices, especially in the West, have all contributed to the uncertainty and instability of the country's economy.  This instability has led to increased federal efforts to impose preemptive remedies on the states in an attempt to address the nation's energy and economic concerns. 

Given the energy concerns for the nation and those shared by many individual states, NCSL believes that state legislatures should work together, regionally or otherwise, to solve their individual and collective energy supply concerns.   Therefore, NCSL believes that:

States should have the option and authority of being represented in Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) on a voluntary basis.  State participation in an RTO should not supersede nor alter state jurisdiction, unless agreed to by the state;

State-created regional mechanisms like interstate compacts and regional reliability boards designed to address transmission reliability and other regional energy issues should be facilitated by Congress;

States should collaborate to resolve problems related to the interconnectedness of the energy grid and the environmental impact of generating electricity;

Energy facility siting should remain under state jurisdiction devoid of federal mandates and preemption;

Electric facility siting authority should remain under state authority.  The federal government should not exercise its power of eminent domain in its pursuit of constructing energy facilities or related purposes;

To the extent to which federal activity has restricted state authority over electric facility siting, specifically electricity transmission lines, the federal government should work together with the states to ensure a seamless system of regulatory action and minimize the necessity for the federal backstop to be used;

U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should work in partnership with states:

1. in developing and implementing state and federal energy policy planning processes; and
2. in deploying new energy efficiency and other demand-side options, as well as deploying new and conventional supply-side technologies;
3. Given the national implications of state energy concerns, the federal government should provide sufficient funding to states as they develop energy policies on an individual or regional basis; and
4. The federal government should exercise its authority, especially when requested by states, to assist them as they attempt to solve their energy problems.

August 2010

Energy Security

On August 29, 2005, the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) began a study entitled “American Energy Security,” which analyzes the limitations of world oil production, the consequences of rapid growth in energy demand from “developing” nations led by China and India, and the significant vulnerabilities faced by the United States due to excessive dependence on foreign sources of oil.  The Study proposes a plan for America to establish energy security and independence beginning in 2010 by replacing 5-percent of our oil imports each year through 2030 utilizing domestically produced coal, biomass and oil shale.  The Study demonstrates that whereas world proven oil reserves equal roughly 3 trillion barrels, the United States has between 2 trillion and 4 trillion barrels of oil equivalent available today in the form of coal, biomass, and oil shale.

To achieve these goals, the Study proposes the rapid development of large “poly-gen” energy plants utilizing gasification technologies.  Long-used in the chemical industry and overseas, gasification technologies are capable of producing environmentally superior transportation fuels, industrial and pipeline-quality synthetic natural gas, zero-emissions electricity, hydrogen, chemicals for fertilizers, and enhanced oil and natural gas recovery using captured carbon dioxide, all at stable, long-term costs below the current market prices for oil and natural gas.  Rapid deployment of these technologies, which would enhance current ethanol and biodiesel initiatives already underway, could completely eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil by 2030.

In addition to the national security benefits of this endeavor, the economic benefit to the United States of developing this new “energy manufacturing” sector would be staggering.  Recent analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that rapid deployment over the next two decades of gasification technology using coal as a primary feedstock for gaseous and liquid fuels would create nearly 1.5 million new, high-paying energy manufacturing jobs in the United States; reduce our nation’s energy costs by 33 percent; and, result in an aggregate GDP gain of more than $3 trillion.

The National Conference of State Legislators calls on the United States Congress to enact the legislative recommendations of the Southern States Energy Board’s American Energy Security Study.  Immediate Congressional action is needed to accelerate the deployment and use of alternative transportation fuels produced from coal, biomass, and oil shale, in order to begin to eliminate the United States’ dependence on foreign sources of oil.  Copies of this policy position shall be forwarded to members of the Congress of the United States.

August 2009

Environmental Federalism

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) urges the federal government to renew its commitment to environmental protection and the state-federal partnership for environmental protection.

State governments, acting in partnership with the federal government, play an indispensable role in our mutual effort to protect natural resources and combat environmental degradation and pollution. State implementation of federal law is the cornerstone of our current system of environmental protection. States are particularly dependent upon federal pollution control laws to address the interstate migration and affects of pollutants. Given the increasing trend of delegating more authority to the states, it is essential that the federal government not abandon its commitment to uniform minimum federal standards, the state-federal partnership and the very laws and agencies that guarantee the success of our partnership.

In furtherance of the above, the following principles should guide NCSL's federal lobbying efforts with respect to the state-federal environmental partnership:

• The present level of commitment and funding for natural resource and environmental protection efforts should be enhanced; specifically, the federal government should prevent efforts to further erode its commitment to provide technical support, research and financial assistance to states and avoid further cost shifts to the states;
• The federal government should provide funding to the states in the form of block grants that provide for maximum state flexibility to use federal monies in the manner which they deem proper and in a manner which is consistent with their intended purpose;
• Uniform minimum federal standards for environmental protection should be preserved and strengthened;
• Statutory authority for states to enact state environmental standards that are more stringent than their minimum federal counterparts should be maintained and renewed;
• Within the framework of uniform minimum federal standards, states should have maximum flexibility in devising approaches and methods for obtaining compliance with such standards. The federal government should adopt performance-based standards which prescribe the end to be accomplished and leave the means of obtaining the end up to individual states. In return for this new level of autonomy, the federal government should adopt a system of performance audits and objectively quantifiable benchmarks that would allow the federal government to certify state performance results in meeting uniform minimum federal standards;
• There should be consistent, uniform and vigorous federal enforcement of environmental laws to deter non-compliant behavior and to reward those who are acting in compliance with such laws. The federal government should continue its present role of overseeing the efficacy of state efforts to enforce uniform minimal federal environmental protection standards. States have a compelling interest in the uniform application and enforcement of federal laws in order to prevent pollution havens and to prevent states with lax enforcement from obtaining unfair economic advantages;
• In light of the Supreme Court rulings in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida and Alden v. Maine, which suggest that citizens will no longer be able to sue states in federal court for violations of federal environmental protection laws, the federal government needs to allocate adequate resources to ensure compliance among the states.
• Cost-benefit analysis should be performed in environmental decision making. Sound public policy decision making demands that benefits should be proportionate to costs, after factoring in the totality of the circumstances. However, cost-benefit analysis should not be the only determinative factor in any environmental decision making process. Rather, such an analysis should be one of the many tools that inform decision makers in formulating sound public policy. In the face of uncertainty in devising analytical methods, any default assumptions that are employed should favor enhanced environmental protection.
• In order to finance environmental protection efforts, Congress should create funding mechanisms that consistently generate revenue solely for such uses. All monies from such funds should be fully appropriated for their intended uses. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides an example of how a specifically earmarked environmental protection fund could operate. In 1965, Congress created the LWCF to finance America's investment in its public lands. The LWCF works by using a percentage of offshore-oil-lease money from federally owned lands to fund conservation efforts. The idea is simple: use money generated from resource extraction for resource protection. Without using any general public taxpayer monies, LWCF monies have financed forty years of resource protection. This type of funding model should receive greater application;
• NCSL supports a citizen's right to access public information. In an open democracy, the public should have access to publicly held information. NCSL supports "right-to-know" laws and other statutory and regulatory mechanisms that readily provide public access to public information while acknowledging the need to balance this right with security concerns relating to the distribution of sensitive material such as water security information regarding water infrastructure and sources of supply; finally,
• NCSL opposes any attempt to preempt or circumvent the authority of state courts and local administrative bodies. Proposed federal legislation that would centralize decision-making in the Federal courts for compensation for land use and other regulatory actions represents a major threat to our Constitutional system of federalism. Improving the efficiency of the state and local judicial process is an issue for state legislatures, not Congress. Land use and regulatory policy must remain a primary responsibility of the states. The authority of state courts must be preserved.

August 2010

Farm Credit Institutions

August 2010

Federal Facilities Cleanup

Federal and state governments are together faced with managing large quantities of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed (a combination of hazardous and radioactive materials) waste and materials that are located at numerous federal facilities throughout the United States. Some of these wastes and materials have been improperly handled over the years, necessitating both waste management and environmental restoration at these facilities. These facilities were crucial to the nation's production of nuclear weapons and overall defense strategy, and while significant progress has been made, there is a continuing need for conscientious and thorough environmental reclamation. These facilities, which belong to the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Defense, each have specific environmental needs that must be addressed.

Radioactive and hazardous wastes have been generated since 1942 by the development, production, and maintenance of nuclear warheads by the Department of Energy's network of nuclear weapons production facilities, including its national research labs. Even as waste minimization activities are pursued, substantial amounts of waste continue to be generated, as the environmental restoration effort progresses. This includes transuranic waste (TRU), which the Department of Energy  is currently disposing of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, as well as the high-level radioactive waste generated by the production of nuclear weapons. This high-level waste will be disposed of in the same repository that the Department of Energy will operate for the disposal of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. Significant amounts of low-level radioactive waste and mixed wastes were also generated from nuclear weapons production, as well as general maintenance activities, at military bases. This waste also requires disposal.

Some wastes continue to be stored in inadequate interim storage facilities and pose potentially serious long-term threats to public health and the environment. There are also safety and equity concerns surrounding the transportation and ultimate disposal of these wastes. The states insist that the cleanup and disposal programs advance in a safe, cost-effective and expeditious manner.

Other federal facilities that have generated waste and may remain unsafe for humans include military bases and formerly used defense sites operated by the Department of Defense. States are also committed to the cleanup and conversion of closed military bases to other beneficial uses as soon as possible. NCSL encourages the Department of Defense to lessen the impacts of closing these facilities by entering into partnerships with business and other private interests in order to turn them into sites of commerce and development.

In 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA) which waived the doctrine of sovereign immunity and allowed partial state environmental regulation at federal facilities.

NCSL firmly supports the principles of the FFCA. Furthermore, NCSL believes that:

• Federal, state and local environmental laws have been enacted to protect health and the environment.  Federal facilities must comply with and be held to the same standards established by these laws.  Lower standards for federal facilities are unjustified.
• The federal government should be responsible for the cleanup of federal facilities. There should be coordination among the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with state regulatory agencies to insure that the cleanup of these facilities is properly and efficiently managed.
• The federal government should be subject to all state laws governing the cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste materials.
• Department of Energy facility sites should continue to be incorporated into the National Priority List according to the severity of the risk they pose, but cleanup should be independent of Superfund monies.
• The Department of Energy should continue to use the contract review process to provide effective oversight and to evaluate integrated contracts for cost accountability
• Congress should provide for sufficient long-term funding for the effective and timely cleanup and disposal of existing and future wastes. Cost -effective solutions must be developed and implemented by federal agencies to meet cleanup standards that protect human health and the environment. Congress must fund and federal agencies must implement an aggressive research and development program to develop and to put into place the technology necessary to address the cleanup situation at all federal facilities.
• Cleanup work must be accomplished in strict compliance with federal facility agreements, federal laws and regulations. Congress should give state and federal regulators complete enforcement authority necessary to ensure such compliance. For those sites that do not require extensive cleanup, a future use and owner should be identified as quickly as possible in order to return the affected land to productive use.
• States, Indian tribes and affected units of local government must have a continuing, substantive role in the planning and oversight activities of the waste-management effort. The Department of Energy must recognize that cultural resources and artifacts may be present on DOE sites, and must partner with affected Indian tribes to identify and mitigate impacts to those resources. Additionally, the general public must also be given the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process.
• Whenever possible, pollution prevention practices should be followed and recovered materials should be recycled or reused.
• As it will be necessary for waste to be transported across state-lines to waste storage and disposal facilities, all transportation must be done in compliance with state and federal safety procedures for the shipping of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. States must play an integral role in evaluating the safety of a particular method of transportation and must be continually informed about the status of waste movement and storage.

U.S. Department of Energy

Furthermore, NCSL recognizes the work of the Department of Energy's Office of Environment Management in developing the Five Year Strategic Plan, that includes comprehensive, strategic plans to characterize and prioritize the long-term cleanup and management of wastes at all Department of Energy facilities. NCSL urges the continued implementation of these accelerated cleanup plans, and supports the following:

• A firm commitment to a cleanup schedule, including aggressive, but realistic milestones for all activities.  Action should be taken to manage federal radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste sites as soon as possible, but safety and quality cleanup must remain the priority.
• Federal cleanup efforts must be conducted in full consultation with the affected states, Indian tribes and units of local government. Cleanup efforts should begin with site-specific plans which can then be used to develop a national plan for future cleanups. An ongoing dialogue with the states should be maintained and institutionalized to ensure effective state involvement in critical cleanup related decisions. 
• Federal cleanup efforts should enforce priorities and meet milestones set forth in federal-state consent orders regarding the cleanup of specific sites.
• A fully funded and comprehensive long-term stewardship program for all of the Department of Energy sites must be developed to ensure that communities are protected in perpetuity.
• Funding designated to cleaned and closed “accelerated site cleanups” must be reallocated to other sites for cleanup.

NCSL acknowledges the Department of Energy’s Performance Based Project Management with the goal of expeditiously and significantly improving program performance.  NCSL supports improving program performance and risk reduction activities and supports the following:

• The need for performance standards that are both consistent and effectively applied.
• The creation of a comprehensive risk-based cleanup strategy that reduces risk to human health and the environment.  This strategy should be both clear and technically defensible.
• Department of Energy adherence to all National Environmental Policy Act processes, specifically the public involvement requirements.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

In accordance with Public Law 96-164, the Department of Energy designed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as the first permanent repository for defense generated transuranic (TRU) waste.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (PL 102-579), passed by Congress in 1992, allows for further testing and experiments to determine the viability of radioactive waste disposal in deep geologic salt formations as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 1955.

NCSL urges Congress and DOE to:

• Appropriate adequate funds and direct the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to expedite their respective responsibilities under Public Laws 96-164 and 102-579.
• Implement through DOE, a compensation program that recognizes equity considerations for state and local governments hosting a TRU waste repository and the federal government's obligation to provide such compensation.
• Provide assistance to the host community to subsidize and maintain an independent environmental monitoring and analytical laboratory to ensure public confidence and safety (i.e., Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center).
• Provide assistance to the state of New Mexico and other affected states for highway maintenance and improvements, emergency response training and equipment, and public education.
• Provide assistance to corridor states for transportation-related impacts.

U.S. Department of Defense

NCSL will continue to work with the federal government in the development of site-specific cleanup plans. State legislators are interested in the timely cleanup and conversion of bases subject to closure to lessen the financial impact on the states and local communities from the closure of military facilities. The Department of Defense should establish an aggressive cleanup schedule for military facilities or develop options for the transfer of land to new owners who agree to cleanup the site before developing it for future use. The Department of Defense and any future owners should be subject to all state laws governing the cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste materials. All cleanup efforts should be conducted in full consultation with affected states and local communities.

August 2010

Hazardous Waste Management

Over the past two decades, the adage "out of sight, out of mind" has given way to a national program that seeks to encourage source reduction, high-technology treatment, and secure disposal of hazardous wastes. Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and subsequent amendments and reauthorizations of this initial legislation to implement its national program. Such legislation requires the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and cleanup at contaminated sites so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment. Despite this national program, hazardous waste continues to be a significant environmental problem.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) believes that the following principles must be accommodated in crafting a national solution to hazardous waste management:

• The federal government has an appropriate role to play in crafting coherent solutions to abandoned and inactive hazardous waste sites. Congress should continue to finance hazardous waste site cleanup efforts through national, broad based financing mechanisms that uniformly spread the costs of such cleanup efforts over a national revenue base. Congress must recognize that states acting alone do not possess the ability of the federal government to impose such costs nationally.
• Because publicly owned natural resources are victims of improper hazardous waste disposal, these valuable assets must be safeguarded and in many cases restored.
• Because the current system discourages recycling by regulating many byproducts as hazardous waste, a system for regulating hazardous materials destined for recycling should be established.
• Other methods for dealing with hazardous waste such as source reduction, pollution prevention, reuse and recycling should be encouraged and developed.

The federal government must promote measures that will expedite actual site cleanups and site construction activities. Consequently, NCSL believes that any solution to our hazardous waste problems must include the following:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) should be required to adopt policies that encourage both the hazardous waste content of products and industrial hazardous waste by-products be kept to a minimum, and that hazardous waste materials be reused, recycled or made non-hazardous whenever possible.
• The U. S. EPA should continue to fund, develop and improve hazardous waste risk assessments, toxicological profiles of priority pollutants found at Superfund sites and consequent long term health and environmental impacts data. The work of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) should be supported and expanded. Such studies and work should be funded through disbursements from the Superfund Trust Fund or through appropriations from the general revenue fund. Any information gathered from either federal or private sources should be subject to peer review and made available as needed.
• The federal government should be required to adopt hazardous waste reduction policies applicable to federal activities and facilities to reduce waste and develop new and improved waste elimination technologies. Such policies should include federal procurement guidelines that permit suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to accommodate pollution prevention practices.
• Congress should adopt policies that promote the availability of affordable environmental liability insurance, including economic incentives for industry to establish its own voluntary insurance pool or insurance fund.
• States should be allowed flexibility in devising their hazardous waste management plans and regulations, including the setting of priorities.
• The federal government must collect and disseminate to the public information on chemical storage, use and disposal practices by government and industry.
• Federal hazardous waste management laws should be vigorously enforced
• The importation of hazardous waste from foreign countries should be controlled through treaties and other agreements.
• Federal policies and agreements that decrease the dumping of hazardous waste in developing countries should be established.
• Health effects studies conducted by the federal government should be comprehensive and based on established exposure standards and measurements and monitoring methodology to be admissible as evidence in victims' compensation court cases.

August 2008 

Intellectual Property Rights In Publicly-Funded Research

The first Morrill Act of 1862, the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 created a system of Land Grant Universities and endowed the colleges with a three-part mission of teaching, research and extension.  The third component of the mission – extension – links the Land Grant Colleges’ programs to the needs of society at large through a service function that includes extending education and technology transfer to the public.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, and amendments, dramatically altered intellectual property rights in publicly-funded research, allowing recipients of federal research funds to patent and license technologies and inventions arising from such research.

Mergers and concentration among agricultural suppliers have greatly diminished the number of farm input suppliers providing seed, chemicals and other products and services to producers.  Ownership and control of plant genetics, plant varieties and the agricultural research is rapidly being concentrated in the hands of a few, economically powerful firms.  The purpose and promise of agricultural research through the Land Grant Colleges, including research into genetics and biotechnology, is to create products of added value to producers and to ultimately enhance farm income.  Privatization of agricultural research has increasingly limited producer access to advanced genetics and the fruits of biotechnology to license and contract, creating a potential legal barrier to agricultural producers fully realizing the economic benefits of agricultural research.

Therefore, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) calls on Congress to review the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and subsequent amendments for its impact on encouraging concentration and vertical integration within the agricultural sector, and for its consistency with the mission and purpose of the Land Grant College system.  Further, Congress should increase federal support for agricultural research, and retain through grant and contract provisions greater portions of technology arising from such research within the public domain.  Congress should also affirm as objectives of the Land Grant Colleges’ agricultural research mission to achieve broad dissemination and producer access to crop technology, and preserve and enhance the income and economic opportunities of producers.

August 2009

Interstate Sale of State-Inspected Meat and Poultry

The 1967 and 1968 Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts prohibit state-inspected products (beef, poultry, pork, lamb, and goat) from being sold in interstate commerce. However, the prohibition does not apply to “non-amenable” products—such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit, alligator and a host of others. These products are normally regulated by state inspection programs, yet can be shipped in interstate commerce without restriction.

The 1967 and 1968 Acts require all state meat and poultry inspection programs to be “at least equal” to federal standards. Twenty eight states have adopted state meat inspection programs that equal or exceed federal standards. State-inspected meat and poultry are the only commodities that are restricted from sale across state lines. Other commodities, such as milk, dairy products, fruit, vegetables, fish, and shellfish, which are inspected under state jurisdiction, are allowed to be marketed freely throughout the U.S. In addition, foreign-inspected meat can be shipped to and sold anywhere in the U.S. as long as that country’s foreign inspection program is equivalent to U.S. federal standards—in practice the same standard which state-inspected programs must meet.

Three USDA Advisory Committees have recommended that the ban on interstate sales of meat and poultry be removed because it will level the economic playing field for small business, spur more competition in the marketplace, create a more uniform inspection system, and enhance consumer confidence in the food supply—all of which will benefit farmers, ranchers, processors, small business, and consumers.

The National Conference of State Legislatures supports federal legislation to allow interstate shipment of state-inspected meat and poultry, and urges members of Congress to ensure such this legislation is enacted.

August 2010

Management of Federal Lands

In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) reversing the 200-year national policy of conveying public lands to private ownership; the Act provides for perpetual federal retention unless it is in the national interest to dispose of a particular parcel. Federal agencies are currently reviewing the uses of lands under federal jurisdiction.

Ninety-three percent of all lands under federal jurisdiction in the United States are located in the West, and over sixty-three percent of the land area in the twelve western states is federally controlled. Further, many federal and non-federal lands are intermingled. This limits the western states' prerogatives in managing the uses of their own land and further limits the potential base of the states' economies. Units of governments whose property tax revenue bases have been reduced by large federal land holdings also require adequate funds to help make up the shortfall. With perpetual federal retention, Congress must assure state payments in lieu of taxes in perpetuity.

Federal agencies are seeking to designate wilderness areas under the Federal Wilderness Act. The decisions on the potential inclusion of lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System or other designated use may affect the potential for state growth, energy development, recreation opportunities, revenue, and other state concerns.

Federal-state relations regarding federal agency land planning vary widely and suffer from a lack of specificity on how and when cooperation should take place. No meaningful mechanism currently exists in the wilderness review process for the involvement of legislatures as the state policymaking bodies.

The National Conference of State Legislatures urges all federal agencies involved in the management of public lands to incorporate within their policies and regulations provisions for a continuous and cooperative involvement of state governments in public lands policy and public lands management. Furthermore, NCSL supports remedial legislation which will guarantee a state role in public lands management and establish procedures for designations, disposition, or use of certain public lands found to be excess property.

Among the many functions of the federal agencies which have public lands management responsibilities are wildlife management, endangered species protection, wetlands protection, meeting the open space requirements of growing population, environmentally sound forest and rangeland management, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to local governments, and the administration of mineral development impact loans. Increasing pressures on rangeland have made better management imperative. Federal agencies managing federal land should assure that uses both on-site and off-site do not cause adverse environmental impacts on the federal land or other adjacent lands or waters and provide special protection for wetland resources in light of the goal of no loss of wetlands.

Increasing energy development will impose heavy burdens on federal agencies to process lease applications properly and expeditiously and provide for protection of the environment. As Congress considers funding for federal agencies with public land management responsibilities, NCSL recommends that Congress assure appropriations sufficient for the full and proper execution of the agencies' legislative mandates.

If a federal wilderness designation occurs, state "inholdings" in wilderness areas should be purchased, or exchanged with lands of equal or greater value outside of these areas as designated by FLPMA.

August 2010

Marketing and Mergers

Changes in the national and global agricultural marketplace affect farmers dramatically.  Consolidation of agribusinesses and new marketing practices are but some of the marketplace elements that encourage and discourage farmers, sometimes creating a wealthy farm owner, sometimes destroying a family farm.  The National Conference of State Legislatures seeks a federal policy that will sustain a vibrant agricultural marketplace and strong farm economy while providing for competition and fair practices.

Agribusiness Vertical Integration and Marketing Practices

In recent years, agribusiness has sought closer ties with farm producers through contracting and vertical integration to increase efficiency and ensure steady supplies of commodities with specific attributes.  Farm producers are becoming more closely tied to agribusinesses that process and market food products by arrangements that coordinate the various stages of the food production and marketing system. 

Direct marketing arrangements are rapidly replacing the traditional open market system for valuing and trading commodities.  While contract production arrangements may afford benefits to both producers and agricultural processors, loss of a competitive marketplace entails new risks for producers.  The experience of certain farm sectors within integrated systems also shows that producers can be vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation under contract arrangements, particularly when producers are wholly dependent on one or two integrators for contracting opportunities. 

NCSL recommends that Congress review the Packers and Stockyards Act as a mechanism for addressing unfair practices that may occur under such arrangements, monitor activities in this area, and enact appropriate and timely legislation to safeguard the welfare of producers.

Further, in light of the level of unprecedented concentration within the packing industry - a level even greater than that which prompted enactment of the Packers and Stockyards Act - vigorous and determined enforcement of anti-monopolistic practices of the major purchasers and processors of livestock, including discriminatory procurement practices, is vital to the prosperity of production agriculture.  The National Conference of State Legislatures urges Congress and USDA to strengthen and diligently enforce the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act in concert with the clear intent of the Act to curb monopolistic abuses in the concentrated meatpacking sector

Agribusiness Mergers

Despite the explicit prohibition of Section 7 of the federal Clayton Anti Trust Act (15 U.S.C. 18) against business mergers having the effect of lessening of competition or tending to create a monopoly, rapid consolidation among the nation’s leading agribusiness conglomerates continues unabated.  The past decade has witnessed previously unthinkable mergers and buyouts of competing agribusiness giants. 

Recent mergers and proposed mergers are resulting in unprecedented consolidation in our national food production and processing system.  The combinations are a significant milestone in the relentless march toward integration and monopolization in the meatpacking sector and have posed a major test of the effectiveness of anti-trust law and its enforcement.  In September of 2000, the GAO found deficiencies in the ability of the Grain Inspection/Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to police anticompetitive practices in the meat industry.  It also confirms growing fears that our nation’s food supply will ultimately be dominated by a handful of national and international food conglomerates.

The National Conference of State Legislatures therefore calls upon Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to closely scrutinize further mergers among the nation’s livestock slaughtering and production companies with a combined value of greater than $1 billion, to establish a bipartisan commission to study the effect of concentration and vertical integration in the livestock sector, and to recommend necessary changes in policy and authorities to preserve and enhance competition.

August 2010