Gillibrand a key player in climate bill

WASHINGTON — If the fate of a climate change bill rests in the hands of agricultural interests, Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand may play a key role.

Mrs. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., emerged as a big supporter of the Senate version of the bill this week, even as a wide range of farm groups came out strongly against it.

Mrs. Gillibrand, perhaps more than other senators, is bound to be pulled in two directions as lawmakers negotiate for changes in the bill introduced by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. She sits on both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Agriculture Committee, and she said both panels will probably vote on the bill by mid-December.

Although she supports the bill and spoke at a press conference with its authors last week, Mrs. Gillibrand said in an interview that she expects to do more work on issues important to farmers, such as allowing farms to combine to achieve carbon offsets.

The Senate bill requires carbon emissions to be cut by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

Several farm interests spoke out against the Senate bill. They will be lobbying Mrs. Gillibrand and other Agriculture Committee members to include farm interests in the carbon offset program.

Mrs. Gillibrand said she expects the committee will vote on the bill late this year. She is one of four senators on both committees.

In her work on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mrs. Gillibrand also is a target for environmental groups that applaud the effort, but will also be looking for bigger, faster reductions in greenhouse gases. That committee also is slated to vote on the bill by early December.

Farm groups said they were troubled that the bill introduced last week does not offer farmers any credit for reducing their carbon output or for the practices they can follow that actually absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The House version contained such credits as well as other provisions included after pressure from farm interests — although not enough to please some Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., ranking Republican on the Agriculture Committee, said the Senate bill "follows the House-passed bill down the path of higher energy costs, job losses and economic pain for no benefit. Further, it would only hurt farmers, ranchers and forest landowners and provide them no opportunity to recoup the higher costs they will pay for energy and the other inputs necessary to work the land."

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., a former U.S. agriculture secretary, called the proposal "an assault on agriculture" that has real costs for farmers but only theoretical benefits.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, which opposed legislation in the House as well, said the Senate bill is worse.

"America's farmers and ranchers did not fare that well in the House-passed climate change bill and they fare even worse in the Senate bill," said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. "There are few benefits and even greater costs to agriculture and the American public."

Even farm groups that supported the House bill, such as the liberal-leaning National Farmers Union and the American Farmland Trust, came out against the bill from Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer.

"It is important the U.S. Senate begin the process of developing climate change and renewable energy legislation," NFU President Roger Johnson said. "However, the language unveiled fails to address the unique role agriculture can play."

Farm groups also say they worry about increased oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, rather than the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Mrs. Gillibrand said she is sympathetic to concerns about which agency deals with farmers, given the USDA's greater familiarity with farming and with farmers' challenges.

In the House, Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., pushed through an amendment to put the USDA in charge of the carbon offset program for farmers, instead of the EPA. If farmers can receive credit for the carbon their farms absorb, that softens the bite from higher energy costs that the bill will probably deliver and could help the country achieve the carbon reduction goals, farm advocates say.

Mrs. Gillibrand said she wants to be sure that farmers' interests are reflected in the offsets, which are part of the carbon cap and trade program. The program sets overall limits on emissions and lets industries buy and sell pollution allowances.