NEWSCO M
GOVERNMENT & POLICY
and their families. Over the next three months, they will hold multiple hearings to probe past actions of the Obama Administration. Upton and Issa announced their intentions to plunge into reviews even before being sworn in on Jan. 5. Last November, before taking over the Energy & Commerce Committee, Upton wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu criticizing the Administration’s stimulus spending and demanding answers from Chu to a detailed list of questions about spending of American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds by the Department of Energy. And last month, Issa sent requests to some 150 trade associations, think tanks, and corporations seeking recommendations of regulations that have “negatively impacted job growth of your members’ industries” and should therefore be examined by his committee. Several associations—the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates—acknowledge responding to the letters and say they identified a wide range of regulatory issues of importance to them, many in the environmental arena. In addition to the regulations that will be looked at as a result of Issa’s letter, he and Upton have made it clear that their top environmental priority will be challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to control industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, through provisions of the Clean Air Act. Their view has the backing of most Republicans, some Democrats, and many industries. “We will not allow the Administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate,” Upton says about EPA’s planned regulatory schedule for greenhouse gas reductions, announced by Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on Dec. 23, 2010 (C&EN, Jan. 3, page 10). “EPA has its foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery.” Upton expects to hold hearings on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations beginning next month. The Democrat-controlled Senate is off to a slower start. In some cases the membership of committees is still under negotiation. But in the face of House Republican statements, several Senate Democrats have fired off salvos of their own, warning OPENING DAY
House members fill the chamber on Jan. 5, the first day of the 112th Congress.
CONGRESSIONAL OUTLOOK FOR 2011 ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DRUG SAFETY oversight
hearings are likely to dominate first session
WITH THE REPUBLICANS taking control
of the House of Representatives and the Democrats maintaining only a small majority in the Senate, the first session of the 112th Congress isn’t likely to be harmonious. Although both parties have indicated a willingness to work together, it is unclear whether they can set aside party differences and pass legislation in key areas such as energy and environmental protection. Divisions are already emerging as House Republicans set as their top priorities the repeal of the health care reform law and a reduction of the federal discretionary budget. The new House leadership has also made it clear that they will focus on rigorous oversight of governmental programs as well as environmental regulations that they believe negatively impact jobs. The Senate remains focused on facilitating the nation’s economic recovery, hastening its energy independence, improving its education system, and tackling the immigration situation. Intertwined in both chambers’ agendas are key science and technology issues. For instance, committees in both the House and Senate will continue to work toward renewing chemical plant security regulations, reforming the patent system, and ensuring drug safety. Tight control of the
federal budget—specifically a pledge from the GOP to cut budgets across the government back to 2008 levels—will also impact science and technology issues at all levels. The following is C&EN’s annual outlook of what to expect from Congress in the coming months.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT: CONTROLLING CO2 EMISSIONS REMAINS A DIVISIVE ISSUE Oversight, investigations, reports, and hearings are watchwords for the House, particularly in the next few months of the congressional session. That’s the promise of House leaders who oversee energy and environmental issues—Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee; Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee; and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources. All have made clear their desire to investigate and eliminate regulations that they argue have killed jobs, held back American businesses, and hurt workers WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
26
JANUARY 17, 20 1 1
house gas regulation will be left to the states to administer, not EPA, and as yet there is no regulation; it is now only under development. Eventually, Lash says, utilities and others may turn to Congress for clarity about how they should address carbon emissions in the future. Utilities, he notes, are making huge long-term investment decisions on new power plants— whether to build natural gas, coal, nuclear, or renewable energy facilities—and need certainty about future regulations. “They need answers to questions over MANUEL BALCE CENETA/AP
Republicans to back off from attacks on environmental protections. During her first briefing of the new Congress, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, warned Upton about legislative attempts to roll back environmental regulation. “I will use every tool available to me to oppose any legislative effort that threatens the health, safety, or well-being of the people of America,” Boxer said. This includes any move by Upton and his committee to stop EPA from meeting its Clean Air Act requirements, she noted, adding that these obligations were congressionally mandated and court affirmed. She was joined by Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.), Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and others in defense of the agency. Additional energy issues likely to garner congressional oversight include oil and gas regulation and development. House Republican Lamborn says he will focus on the Department of the Interior and what he sees as its tardiness in opening federal lands to energy development, particularly oil-shale R&D projects in the West, including his home state of Colorado. He has vowed to bring fellow Coloradan Interior Secretary Ken Salazar before his committee to answer his charges. On the Senate side, the Energy & Natural Resources Committee has set its first hearing for Jan. 26 to reexamine legislation to reform offshore oil and gas drilling in light of the BP spill. The committee unanimously passed legislation to reform offshore activities last year, but the bill never reached the Senate floor. On other energy topics, congressional aides expect Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman Jr. (D-N.M.) to continue his interest in legislation setting national standards to encourage development of renewable energy sources. However, in this sharply divided Congress, it is unclear whether energy legislation will advance, aides say, adding that a brief window of opportunity for energy bills might open by summer once politics settle down. But that window may close with the run-up to the 2012 elections, they add. Jonathan Lash, president of the environmental and energy think tank World Resources Institute, agrees that the possibility for energy legislation moving through Congress in this political environment is bleak. He notes that the controversial green-
impact, says Jonathan Pershing, U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change. Failure of the U.S. to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as it pledged to do in late 2009 under the Copenhagen Accord, “will be noticed,” he says. Under the Copenhagen deal, the U.S. said it intended to cut its emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, “in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation.” Lack of action by the U.S., historically the world’s largest emitter, could limit the willingness of other countries, notably China, to fulfill the promises they made in the Copenhagen Accord to control their releases of greenhouse gases.—JJ & CH
HOMELAND SECURITY: CHEMICAL PLANT REGULATIONS ARE STILL UP FOR DEBATE
IN CHARGE Upton is leading the powerful
House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has promised investigations ranging from EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases to product safety.
what will be the future cost of carbon dioxide emissions. They have an interest in having Congress address this question,” he says. On the other hand, Lash notes the “thunderous” opposition to EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, which makes legislation unlikely. Meanwhile, there is a possibility for passage of specific, marginal energy legislation to encourage and support energy efficiency and green construction and to promote clean, carbon-free energy development, Lash says. But, he adds, hurdles are high. “Most likely,” he says, “the outcome will be nothing.” Congressional action, however, on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation and inaction on any energy bill will have an international WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
27
JANUARY 17, 20 1 1
The dramatic shift to the right in the House will be strikingly evident in the House Homeland Security Committee, where conservative Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) replaces liberal Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) as chairman. King, who previously led the committee from 2005 to 2007, has indicated that he will push to give the Department of Homeland Security permanent authority for safeguarding U.S. chemical facilities against a terrorist attack, without significantly modifying the existing regulatory regime. DHS currently regulates security at approximately 6,000 “high risk” chemical manufacturing plants and other industrial facilities throughout the nation under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), a temporary program begun in 2007. King and other Republicans opposed a bill (H.R. 2868) introduced in the 111th Congress by Thompson and approved by the House in November 2009 that would have greatly expanded the scope of CFATS. In addition to giving DHS permanent authority to regulate security at chemical plants, H.R. 2868 would have granted the department new power to order the highest-risk facilities to adopt so-called inherently safer technology (IST), such as the use of less toxic chemicals or less hazardous processes, in order to reduce their attractiveness as potential terrorist targets. That Democrat-sponsored bill failed to become law, though, when in July 2010 the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee approved an alterna-
GOVERNMENT & POLICY
current CFATS program largely intact and up and running for at least a few more years, according to Allmond. “And I would not expect any legislation passing in the next two years to include an IST mandate,” he adds.—GH
CONSUMER PROTECTION: EXPECT ACTION ON PRODUCT, DRUG SAFETY Growing concerns about the quality and safety of prescription drugs will likely trigger hearings in both the House and the Senate this year. Leaders in both chambers have pledged to overhaul drug safety policies at the Food & Drug Administration. “We need better protections against unsafe drugs and stronger oversight of the entire drug supply chain,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, said in
In the House, action will be spearheaded by Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who introduced the Drug Safety Enhancement Act (H.R. 6543) during the waning days of the previous Congress as a prelude to his intentions in this Congress. Harkin and Bennet praised this legislation, which, like Bennet’s bill, would give FDA more authority and resources to regulate a more globalized drug market. Dingell is expected to reintroduce the bill this year. “Americans have been constantly reminded over the years of the challenges FDA and the industry face in ensuring the safety of the U.S. drug supply,” he said in a statement. “We must address the deficiencies that have been uncovered by recent recalls.” Dingell has promised to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get the bill moving as quickly as possible. Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, has also announced MANUEL BALCE CENETA/AP
tive measure offered by Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) that would have extended the current CFATS program for three years, without the IST provision. Congress didn’t take final action on either proposal. King’s policy positions on chemical plant security are largely mirrored by the chemical industry, which has been lobbying lawmakers to permanently authorize CFATS without making any major structural changes. “We think the current program has worked very well,” says Calvin M. Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the nation’s largest chemical companies. The industry has worked closely with DHS and has invested more than $8 billion in security enhancements, according to Dooley. “We think CFATS is a very solid program that doesn’t need a lot of modification at this time,” he remarks. Chemical makers will continue to adamantly oppose including an IST mandate in any CFATS authorization bill, Dooley notes. Decisions about how facilities manufacture their products and which chemicals are used “should be relegated primarily to the private sector,” he says. In late 2006, Congress gave DHS limited authority and a three-year deadline to create and put in place a federal antiterrorism security program for high-risk chemical facilities. Lawmakers have thus far been unable to agree on how to structure the program for the long term and have kept it alive through a series of short-term extensions. It’s unclear, though, how much of a priority a permanent authorization of CFATS will be for the new Congress. In a statement issued shortly after the midterm elections, King said that under his leadership, the committee would initially focus on higher profile issues, such as “al-Qaeda’s tactic of recruiting and radicalizing individuals residing in America,” and draw attention to what he calls “homegrown terrorism.” He also wants to consolidate the dozens of congressional committees and subcommittees that currently oversee DHS’s operations. “It’s doubtful that CFATS will be something we see in the first two months; perhaps by late spring or early summer we may see legislation,” says William E. Allmond IV, vice president of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, a trade group. It’s very likely that the 112th Congress will ultimately pass a bill that keeps the
a joint statement with Sen. Mi- INVESTIGATOR Issa, plans to investigate the failure who heads the chael F. Bennet (D-Colo.) last of FDA to keep the U.S. drug month. Both senators vowed to House Oversight & supply safe. Within the next Government Reform work with leaders in the House Committee, has three months, Issa plans to to pass a drug safety bill during already signaled that hold a hearing to shed light on he plans to scrutinize this Congress. FDA failures, with the purpose To get the ball rolling, Bennet environmental of reforming the agency and regulations, as well plans to reintroduce the Drug making it more transparent as product and drug Safety & Accountability Act ear- safety. and accountable to the public. ly this year. The bill (S. 3690), As the U.S. grapples with which failed to move in the last growing concerns about the Congress, would strengthen quality and safety of drugs, it drug manufacturing quality standards and is also facing increasing shortages of many improve tracking of drugs manufactured at lifesaving drugs. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Dforeign sites. It would also give FDA authorMinn.) intends to address that problem by ity to recall unsafe drugs and beef up the introducing new legislation this month. agency’s enforcement powers. The bill would require pharmaceutical WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
28
JANUARY 17, 20 1 1
companies to notify FDA in advance when they decide to limit or discontinue making a particular drug. It would also give FDA the authority to expedite approval of alternative treatments or allow the importation of equivalent drugs from other countries. Last month, Klobuchar sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg urging FDA to take “immediate action” to ensure the availability of essential drugs. She pointed out that numerous medications are in short supply, including morphine for pain relief, propofol for sedation, and leucovorin for treating cancer. “Physicians, pharmacists, and patients are currently among the last to know when an essential drug will no longer be available,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “There needs to be better coordination between the pharmaceutical industry, FDA, and health care providers so patients don’t lose access to the medications they depend on.” Access to key cancer drugs is also on the agenda for the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Chairman Fred Upton (RMich.) and other Republicans on the committee were “gravely concerned” by FDA’s decision last month to withdraw approval for Avastin to treat breast cancer because the agency found the drug to be unsafe and not effective for that use (C&EN, Dec. 20, 2010, page 23). In a joint statement, they claimed that “FDA is putting economics ahead of proper courses of treatment.” FDA’s decision to deny access to Avastin “is the first step towards government rationing of health care,” the lawmakers said. Upton and his Republican colleagues vowed “strict FDA oversight” during this Congress, saying the Avastin decision was “just the beginning” of more to come under the health care reform law. “The Energy & Commerce Committee is committed to repealing the new health care law, and we will hold hearings to hold FDA accountable for its decision and protect access to treatment for the thousands of women who rely on this drug,” the lawmakers added. Product safety will also be on the docket for the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Specifically, the committee is expected to take another look at the two-year-old Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Pushed by the chairman of the committee at the time, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the law particularly vexed manufacturers and sellers because it set a standard for lead content in all children’s products that was nearly impossible to meet.
“We will not allow the Administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate.” Both Democrats and Republicans on product safety subcommittees of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee have indicated they would like to review the lead standard section of the legislation, possibly giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission more flexibility on regulating some products. CPSC Chairwoman Inez M. Tenenbaum has said she favors reexamination of parts of the law. The agency has put on hold some of the law’s provisions for product testing and certification because of alarms raised by small businesses over the cost of implementing the lead standard.—BEE & DJH
CHEMICAL REGULATION: TSCA REFORM TAKES A BACKSEAT An overhaul of the federal law that governs commercial chemicals is not at the top of the congressional agenda in 2011. However, this issue is expected to crop up later in the year, industry representatives tell C&EN. In the past two years, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held hearings about the need to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Last year, this committee met with industry and environmental groups in a series of closed-door discussions on possible changes to that law. This led to introduction of a House TSCA reform bill in July 2010 (C&EN, Aug. 2, 2010, page 11). But by then, it was too late to gain the political traction needed for refinement and passage of the measure before the end of the 111th Congress. For 2011, “TSCA reform will take a backseat until the second half of the year,” predicts Larry Sloan, president of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA). The group represents mainly small and midsized chemical producers. Likewise, Christopher Cathcart, president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, expects bipartisan TSCA reform legislation to emerge at some point during the 112th Congress—although he says it may not come up until 2012. CSPA member companies are formulators of WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
29
JANUARY 17, 20 1 1
household and industrial products. Scott Jensen, a spokesman for the industry group American Chemistry Council, says anticipated congressional action during the second half of the year probably won’t result in a complete rewrite of TSCA. What’s more likely is that Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a TSCA reform bill in the Senate, while the House Energy & Commerce Committee may hold more hearings on changes needed to the chemical control law, Jensen says. SOCMA’s Sloan is optimistic that new GOP leaders in the House, notably Chairman Fred Upton (Mich.) of the Energy & Commerce Committee, will be open to modernizing TSCA. The 112th Congress is not likely to ignore TSCA because the need to revise this law stems from a growing lack of confidence about the safety of the chemical industry’s products, points out Richard Denison, senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental group. This dearth of confidence is demonstrated by states increasingly adopting restrictions on or banning certain chemicals, such as brominated flame retardants. A regulatory area that will garner early congressional attention is pesticides. Because House Republicans are expected to aggressively scrutinize all Environmental Protection Agency programs, the regulation of pesticides—particularly the agency’s controversial Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP)—is likely to be in the crosshairs. A December 2010 letter from Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, requested various groups to identify regulations that negatively impact jobs. In response, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), a watchdog group that is opposed to nearly all regulations, urged the chairman to investigate EDSP. EPA was required to develop the program to screen chemicals for their potential to interact with hormones in people as part of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act and of amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. After more than a decade of planning, EPA launched the program in Oc-
tober 2009, focusing initially on pesticide chemicals. In its letter, CRE claimed that the tests used in EDSP are unreliable and have not been demonstrated to be adequate. “The cost of performing the EDSP tests will not likely cost many jobs, but the test results might,” wrote Jim J. Tozzi, head of CRE. “Failing these tests could result in a product ban or regulations so stringent that persons involved in their manufacture could lose their jobs.” Another challenge facing EPA’s pesticide program that will likely grab lawmakers’ attention this year is a 2009 court order to require permits under the Clean Water Act for pesticides sprayed near water. In a final rule, issued under the George W. Bush Administration in 2006, EPA excluded pesticides that comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act from being considered pollutants under the Clean Water Act because their effects on aquatic environments are already considered under FIFRA. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down EPA’s interpretation in 2009, ruling that pesticide residues and biological pesticides are pollutants under the Clean Water Act. As it currently stands, pesticide discharges to U.S. waters will require Clean Water Act permits beginning on April 9. Late last year, members of both the House and Senate introduced legislation that would exempt pesticides that comply with FIFRA from needing Clean Water Act permits. Such legislation failed to move but is likely to be introduced again this year by Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. It is unclear whether there is enough interest in the Senate to pursue such a bill. Observers predict, however, that Congress will use the issue as an example of EPA’s aggressive overregulation, despite the fact that EPA was ordered by the courts to develop the rule.—CH & BEE
PATENT REFORM: REVIVED SUBCOMMITTEE TO FOCUS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY One area of possible collaboration between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans is intellectual property (IP). The leadership of the House Judiciary Committee has shifted from Rep. John Conyers Jr. (DMich.) to Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), a
ALEX BRANDON/AP
GOVERNMENT & POLICY
FIRST-TIMERS The freshman
class of House members in the 112th Congress includes 87 Republicans and nine Democrats.
leading proponent of overhauling the U.S. patent system. “We need to improve our patent system to better protect intellectual property and help ensure that good patents are approved more quickly,” Smith said in a recent statement outlining his agenda. “There is bipartisan support for much-needed revisions to our patent system, which has not been significantly updated in over half a century.” Smith has been a strong advocate for patent reform over the past several years, even reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. He cosponsored the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which passed the House but failed to clear the Senate. Signaling that the next Congress will likely have a strong interest in IP issues, Smith announced on Dec. 20 that he was reviving a tech-related subcommittee that will focus on copyright, patent, trademark, and information technology matters. “A separate IP subcommittee will ensure that the committee remains focused on all aspects of intellectual property, including WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
30
JANUARY 17, 20 1 1
patent reform and copyright protections,” Smith said. The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition & the Internet is expected to be chaired by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.). The new panel replaces one that Democrats disbanded when they took control of the House in 2006. The Democrats moved IP-related issues to the full committee, where they got a larger audience but the focus was less intense. Smith indicated that patent reform will be part of the GOP’s job-creation agenda. Legislation will be introduced after hearings are held. “We will have our own product,” he said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) has also made patent reform a high priority. But lawmakers have had trouble balancing the conflicting concerns of a diverse array of stakeholders that includes technology companies, the pharmaceutical industry, universities, and organized labor. Last April, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke noted in a letter to Leahy that “the Administration is eager to see patent reform enacted.” The department endorsed Leahy’s patent reform bill, saying it would help fuel economic growth and job creation by streamlining and strengthening the patent process. However, the proposal stalled after hightech companies such as Intel, Google, and Apple declared their opposition to the bill, arguing that it would not do enough to rein in damages awarded in patent infringement lawsuits. Observers disagree about whether the House and Senate will be able to resolve their differences. “With the complexity of the issues and the polarization of the interests involved, it is unlikely that an agreement will be reached that will allow extensive patent reform to be adopted in
the next few years,” says Anthony Trippe, chair of the Patent Information Users Group and a director of 3LP Advisors, an IP investment advisory firm. Consequently, Trippe says, lawmakers should separately address “critical items that are needed to sustain an innovation economy,” such as reserving the money raised from patent fees for exclusive use by the Patent & Trademark Office. “The U.S. should be investing in the patent office as opposed to looking to it to raise funds” for other unrelated government programs, he declares. But Matthew P. Becker, a patent attorney at the Chicago law firm Banner & Witcoff, thinks the revival of the IP subcommittee in the House “will provide increased emphasis on the patent reform act and should help secure its passing.” Because patent reform can be a bipartisan issue and is pitched as creating jobs, he expects some sort of patent reform legislation will clear Congress in the next two years.—GH
TRADE: EXPECT EARLY APPROVAL OF SOUTH KOREAN TRADE DEAL Rep. David Camp (R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, says he wants to work with President Barack Obama to pass long-delayed free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The bilateral pact with South Korea, in particular, presents an early opportunity for Republicans to work with the President, who has said the deal will contribute significantly to achieving his goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five years. In early December, the White House and the South Korean government announced that they had resolved outstanding issues related to the auto industry that had blocked approval of the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement since it was signed in June 2007 by former president George W. Bush. U.S.based automakers had opposed the original agreement, saying it did not give them enough access to the Korean market. “This is a big win for American employers and workers,” Camp said in a statement. “Not only will this agreement ensure that job-creating U.S. exports are competitive in this vital market, it will—along with other ongoing trade talks in the region— provide us with a critical counterbalance to China’s growing influence.”
Dow Chemical, the largest U.S. chemical maker by revenue, says the agreement will provide more than $1 million in tariff reductions for the company’s U.S.-manufactured exports to South Korea. U.S. chemical exports to South Korea were slowed by the recession in 2009, dropping from nearly $5 billion the previous year to $4.4 billion. South Korea was the 12th-largest market for U.S. chemical exports in 2009. The agreement, if approved by both countries’ legislatures, would be the largest trade accord in terms of commercial value for the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994 with Canada and Mexico. South Korea is America’s seventh-largest trading partner.—GH
RAIL TRANSPORTATION: UPDATE TO FREIGHT RAIL COMPETITION POLICY IS IN THE WORKS Sen. Jay D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, plans to press ahead with legislation to update freight rail competition policy for the first time since Congress deregulated much of the industry in 1980. Rockefeller introduced legislation (S. 2889) in 2009 to address complaints by “captive shippers”—mainly utilities and industrial plants served by a single railroad—that they pay exorbitant rates and are routinely subject to unreliable service. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. chemical facilities that depend on rail service are limited to one long-haul railroad to carry their goods. Although the bill was approved by Rockefeller’s committee in December 2009, it did not see action on the Senate floor during the 111th Congress. Railroads opposed the measure, arguing that “reregulation” would undermine their industry’s ability to attract private investment in the nation’s rail network. At a hearing in September 2010, Rockefeller promised he would continue to push the issue to level the playing field for captive shippers. “Whether we do it this year or next, rail reform is going to happen,” he said. Calvin M. Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the trade group American Chemistry Council, calls S. 2889 “an important step toward creating a more
WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
31
JANUARY 17, 20 1 1
competitive and viable freight rail system,” but says additional changes are needed, such as ending the railroads’ limited exemption from federal antitrust laws.—GH
SCIENCE POLICY: OVERSIGHT AND REAUTHORIZATION WILL DOMINATE ACTIVITY The successful passing last month of the reauthorization of the America Competes Act will be followed up this year by rigorous oversight of the programs included in the bill. Signed by President Barack Obama on Jan. 4, the measure authorizes funding for key science agencies and makes a number of revisions in some science programs. Although there is bipartisan support for science and technology, this measure has drawn criticism from Rep. Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee. “This measure continues to be far too expensive, particularly in light of the new and duplicative programs it creates,” Hall said in a statement following passage of the bill. He noted that the bill goes “beyond the goals and direction of the original America Competes Act, taking us from good, solid fundamental research and much too far into the world of commercialization.” As a result, Hall’s committee is expected to hold hearings to investigate the need for the authorized programs as well as to take a look at their cost. The National Aeronautics & Space Administration will also be on the agenda for the House Science, Space & Technology Committee—which officially reintroduced “space” into its title this year— as well as the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee. Hearings are expected to provide oversight of the agency as it transitions the operation of parts of its human space exploration program from inhouse to the commercial sector. The House committee will also take a close look at reauthorizing the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which had been part of an earlier version of the America Competes Act reauthorization. Established in 2001, NNI coordinates nanotechnology R&D among 25 federal agencies and is past due for congressional review. Committee oversight hearings are also expected on issues such as climate change, scientific integrity, energy R&D, cybersecurity, and science education.—SRM
