Lucas, Frank Rep 5%
==
7/20 ranking member of house sci comm, not as bad as lamar
===
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/frank-d-lucas
9* 5%
===
obama buys up all the ammo
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/people/frank-lucas/
===
===
wait, what?
https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-criticizes-its-own-on-climate
ref climatewire 5/19
https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-criticizes-its-own-on-climate/?ref=drilled
rep. Matt Gaetz (center), a Florida Republican who accepts that man-made climate change is occurring, is being criticized by conservatives for offering legislation to address global warming. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
As some Republicans inch toward climate policy for the first time in years, those in the party who reject climate science are getting nervous that a more permanent shift is coming.
And they’re going on the attack against their former allies.
A group called Energy & Environment Action Team recently sent a 16-page pamphlet to every member of Congress encouraging lawmakers to reject all climate policy and connecting concern about global warming to political losses. In bold letters across the top, the pamphlet stated, "The Plan is … No Plan! Why the GOP shouldn’t do anything on climate."
"There is absolutely no reason for any Republican to offer a plan to ‘combat climate change,’" the pamphlet continued. "Such a plan, if enacted would accomplish nothing good for America or the climate."
A growing number of Republican lawmakers, including some who have disputed climate science for years, are not only now acknowledging global warming but also putting forward climate policies. But some worry that their colleagues are simply shifting to climate action because they have been spooked by the popularity of the Green New Deal.
"If you are planning on running against the Green New Deal, it seems sort of odd to play footsie with key elements of the Green New Deal," said Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna, who was on President Trump’s Energy Department transition team.
In March, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed a "Green Real Deal" resolution that acknowledges the reality of climate change and the threat it poses to national security, and seeks to use innovation to combat global warming.Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) called for a bipartisan "New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy"that would increase the share of renewables on the energy grid, boost nuclear power and encourage electric car production.
"Congressman Gaetz and others are going to do what they think is best, but the idea that Republicans are going to outcompete with Democrats with respect to who can have the best government-based solution to anything is ridiculous and profoundly unserious," McKenna said.
While modest in comparison with the ideas put forward by Democrats — none of the Republican proposals would restrict fossil fuel use, for example — such plans have angered groups allied with the GOP for years.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups opposed to regulations want to increase political pressure on Republicans who are proposing climate action to "educate them and thereby bring them back into line," said Myron Ebell,director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment and head of the Trump EPA transition team.
Ebell said he is particularly concerned that there seems to be a push among House leadership to craft climate policy. He accused House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of misleading others in the party and said some lawmakers, including Reps. Garret Graves (R-La.) andFrank Lucas (R-Okla.), have been misinformed by advocates on the value of clean energy.
"It’s when conservatives have decided to offer alternatives, they have gotten beat, because in the public’s mind it becomes very difficult to tell the difference between the left’s plan and the right’s plan and then pretty soon they’re compromising it, they’re coming to some sort of middle ground and pretty soon we’ve lost the whole issue," he said.
Ebell added: "It’s pretty clear to anybody who looks at it, there is no middle ground."
A spokesman for Gaetz said the congressman has discussed "the reality of climate change" with Republican lawmakers as well as with Trump. Gaetz, who once proposed eliminating EPA, is optimistic that more Republicans will eventually form their own plans to address climate change, spokesman Luke Ball said. Gaetz doesn’t view those in the party who reject science as a lost cause because the scientific evidence is now so overwhelming that it will push others to act, his spokesman said.
"Gaetz is concerned at the lack of support he has received from members of his own party who continue to deny the science of climate change," Ball said. "He believes history will judge harshly those who refuse to acknowledge this issue or take actionable steps to address it."
Other GOP lawmakers criticized from the right for climate policy were more reluctant to call out their colleagues.
Graves is one of the most visible congressional Republicans when it comes to the issue of global warming. Not only does he serve as the top GOP lawmaker on a new House climate change committee, but Graves has a history of acknowledging the risks of a warmer planet (:{Climatewire}:, March 11).
In a brief Capitol Hill interview, he said he hasn’t encountered noticeable pushback from climate deniers or climate contrarians. But he said he’s still cognizant of the way he must broach the issue with other Republicans.
"What you have to do is to meet people where they are and sort of use verbiage or words that translate to people the right way," Graves said.
"You may not be able to go into some Republican circles and say that, ‘Hey, I’ve got this plan on how we’re going to reduce greenhouse gases in the United States and we’re going to convert everything to renewable energy,’" he said.
But Graves added that the audience could be more receptive "if you come in and start talking about strategies on how we can reduce energy costs by improving efficiency and conservation [or] by bringing new technologies to the table."
Nonetheless, conservatives who oppose climate policy plan to escalate their attacks if members of the party don’t back down.
The recent 16-page brochure attacked a few lawmakers for being concerned about climate change, labeling Gaetz as "one Republican to fall for the climate-baiting guilt-trip." The pamphlet, which misrepresents and distorts climate science, portrays Republicans as politically victorious when they reject climate policy. It blamed the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s loss in the 2008 presidential election on his climate policy.
Steve Milloy, editor of JunkScience.com and the author of the pamphlet, said it’s a signal to Republicans not to get out of line on climate policy. Democrats have united on the other side, he said, and the GOP should also do the same. He blamed Republican actions on climate change on young staffers who don’t yet understand the party’s position. Milloy said he plans to make sure other lawmakers don’t "drift" and warned he would extend his advocacy beyond pamphlets.
"People say all kinds of shit, and if they stop saying it, then OK, but if they persist, well, tougher action will be required," he said. "Then it’s going to be ugly."
The differences between Gaetz’s plan and the Green New Deal backed by progressive Democrats are mere "window-dressing," wrote James Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, which aims to muddy climate science.
Taylor has said that Republicans risk alienating their base if they craft climate policy. He said that "weak-minded congressional Republicans" who try to respond to the Green New Deal take away the chance to run against it in the 2020 elections.
He has written critically of Gaetz in particular and even referred to him as "Matt Gore" in reference to Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president and environmental activist.
"Gaetz, Alexander, and theirsmall cadre of Republican climate alarmists are seeking to undermine the conservative Republican voter base and Trump on one of his most important policy principles," he wrote."Their betrayal of Trump and the conservative Republican base will almost certainly and justly come back to haunt them."
The fight on the right over climate change isn’t a new one for Alex Flint, who leads the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative group that supports carbon taxes.
Earlier this year, Flint criticized climate contrarians for their views and argued that denialism is anathema to conservatism because it ignores the risks of global warming. And "being irresponsible disqualifies anyone from being a true conservative," he wrote at the time (:{Climatewire:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, April 15).
In an interview Thursday, Flint made the case that the rejection of climate science is losing ground with Republicans.
"But we won’t know until after the 2020 elections how rapidly it’s occurring," he said.
===
2/19
House Committee on Science, Space and Technology devoted its first hearing of the 116th Congress to exploring the wide-ranging effects of climate change and explaining the science fueling them, a discussion that revealed a subtle shift among key Republicans toward accepting the prevailing research that points to human-driven global warming.
In her opening comments, committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) said that the hearing is one of multiple sessions on climate change the new Congress plans to hold in order to develop policies to address it. The committee's move to highlight mainstream climate science is a marked break from the last six years when it was led by Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, an ardent climate denier from Texas who retired.
The committee's new top Republican, Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, staked out a more pragmatic and less provocative position than Smith and many other conservatives in Congress had.
"Droughts and heat waves come and go naturally, but the changing climate has intensified their impacts," Lucas said in his opening remarks. "We know the climate is changing and that global industrial activity has played a role in this phenomenon. But our communities, like the farmers and ranchers in my district, need to know more about the extent to which a changing climate affects short- and long-term weather patterns."
under Lucas, the committee's minority side invited as its expert Joseph Majkut, who holds a doctorate in atmospheric science and is director of climate policy at the bipartisan Niskanen Center. Majkut adheres to broadly accepted climate science, unlike some GOP-invited speakers in the past. During the question-and-answer period, Majkut quashed fringe theories that a few members floated about climate change as handily as the scientists invited by the Democrats did.
Democrats on the committee welcomed the change in approach by the ranking GOP member.
"For years, too often we found ourselves wasting time with non-technical witnesses about whether it's a matter of scientific debate whether or not it would be a good thing if the Greenland Ice Sheet melted," said Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a physicist. "I was really thrilled to see some of the changes appearing in this committee. I'd also like to thank Ranking Member Lucas and my Republican colleagues for selecting Dr. Majkut as their witness for this hearing. He's someone with a Ph.D. in a relevant science and someone with views which are inside the scientific mainstream and that's refreshing."
Old (and Odd) Arguments Batted Down
Not every minority member on the committee followed Lucas's lead. Some of the older members, such as Rep. MoBrooks (R-Ala.), relied on the old climate denying argument that, because other factors besides human activity caused warming 21,000 years ago, those are the factors driving changes now. (They're not.)Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas)brought up a period of warming in Greenland that was followed by a harsh freeze about 1,000 years ago, in an effort to prompt the expert panel to say that global warming might be a good thing.
Majkut, the GOP-invited expert, demurred. "What we do know is we built our society around the temperatures that we've encountered over the last 200, 300 years," he said, "We're fixing to change those temperatures quite a bit, and that rapid transition is the cause for concern."
In her written testimony, Kristie Ebi, an expert witness and director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at University of Washington, highlighted the vulnerabilitysome populations have to heat by mentioning that more than 700 children died from 1990 to 2014 because they were left in hot cars. Rep. Jim Baird (R-Ind.) suggested they may have perished because vehicles now are built "tighter" than before, allowing less air in.
Baird also speculated that species might adapt swiftly enough to climate change to avoid mass extinctions, despite vast scientific evidence to the contrary.
"The climate now is changing faster than it has been in 10,000 years, so it has to be a challenge for many of our plants and other species to try to evolve fast enough in the face of this rapid rate of change," Ebi responded.
Republicans Attacked the Green New Deal
Younger GOP members on the panel, such as Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida, opened their questioning by saying they accepted climate change and, unlike their older colleagues, did not offer alternative theories.
But nearly all the GOP members used the hearing as an opportunity to bash the Green New Deal, a job creation and climate plan whose outlines were unveiled last week by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Ocasio-Cortez's office bungled the rollout of the project when it posted a meandering draft document with "Frequently Asked Questions" that said, among other things, that its goal was net-zero emissions rather than absolutely zero because "we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."
The GOP members of the Science Committee seized on elements of the FAQ to allege that the Democrats' solution to climate change was a socialist takeover of industries. Republican members also alleged that gasoline and electricity prices would skyrocket. The GOP has used such doomsday scenarios to great effect in the past, including to derail Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in 2010, the last two times Congress was tasked with reining in greenhouse gases.
Democratic members did not address the apocalyptic predictions of their GOP colleagues. But Majkut, who described the Green New Deal as a broad progressive agenda with some climate policies attached to it, rebuffed the idea that broad-based efforts to cut emissions would throttle the economy.
"I think the intent is not to overly punish any particular class of people or any particular technology. It's to put in place a system we're all going to benefit from in the long term," Majkut said. "Frankly, I don't know if it will be too costly.
==
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1029
The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.
---
2/24/2015--Introduced.
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015
This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to revise the process of selecting members of the Science Advisory Board, guidelines for participation in Board advisory activities, and terms of office. The Board provides scientific advice to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This bill requires the Board to independently provide that advice. Federally registered lobbyists may not be appointed to the Board.
The EPA must provide draft risk or hazard assessments in its regulatory proposals and documents to the Board. The Board's advice and comments must be included in the record regarding any such proposal and published in the Federal Register.
The Board's member committees and investigative panels must operate in accordance with the membership, participation, and policy requirements contained in this Act, including new requirements for public participation in advisory activities of the Board. The member committees and investigative panels do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board and may not report directly to the EPA. The Board must:
(1) strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations,
(2) communicate uncertainties,
(3) encourage dissenting members to make their views known,
(4) conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its activities address the most important scientific issues affecting the EPA, and
(5) respond to Congress fully and in a timely manner.
This Act may not be construed as supplanting the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
--
S. 543: EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015
Introduced:
Feb 24, 2015
Status:
Referred to Committee on Feb 24, 2015
This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on February 24, 2015, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.
Sponsor:
John Boozman
John Boozman
Senior Senator from Arkansas
Republican
==
S. 543: EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015
Introduced:
Feb 24, 2015
Status:
Referred to Committee on Feb 24, 2015
This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on February 24, 2015, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.
Sponsor:
John Boozman
John Boozman
Senior Senator from Arkansas
Republican
prev S. 1853 (113th): EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013
---
HR 1029
ONE DEM
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN-7]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK-1]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX-19]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS-4]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL-14]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX-14]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Comstock, Barbara [R-VA-10]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY-At Large]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-6]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX-27]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]* 02/24/2015
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] 02/26/2015
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX-6] 02/27/2015
==
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frank_Lucas
Frank D. Lucas has been a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Oklahoma since winning a special election in 1994. He was initially elected to represent the 6th district, which was eliminated after the 2000 Census, leaving him to represent the 3rd district. (map)
2 25
On April 7, 2014, Lucas introduced the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act (H.R. 4413; 113th Congress) into the House.[1] The bill would reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through 2018 and amend some provisions of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[2][3]
On January 6, 2021, in the aftermath of the attack on the United States Capitol, Lucas joined 146 other Congressional Republicans in voting against the certification of the 2020 presidential election.[4]
In 2022, Lucas was one of 39 Republicans to vote for the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022, an antitrust package that would crack down on corporations for anti-competitive behavior.[5][6]
- 1 Record and controversies
- 2 Bio
- 3 Money in Politics
- 4 Committees and Affiliations
- 5 More Background Data
- 6 Articles and Resources
- 7 Contact
Lucas was born January 6, 1960 in Cheyenne, Oklahoma. He graduated from Oklahoma State University in 1982 with a degree in Agricultural Economics. He first ran for the Oklahoma house of Representatives in 1984 as a against the incumbent Democrat, narrowly losing. A second attempt in 1986 also fell short, but he won in 1988. Immediately after being seated, Lucas became very vocal for causes he supported. The Democratic-controlled state house redrew his district in 1990, but Lucas was reelected in 1992.
Congressional career
In 1994, 6th District Congressman Glenn English stepped down to become a lobbyist for rural electric cooperatives. Lucas won the Republican nomination for the special election on May 10. Lucas won by eight points, carrying 18 of the district's 24 counties. Lucas has been reelected five times, never dropping below 59 percent of the vote. He faced no Democratic opposition in 2002 and 2004.
His district was renumbered the 3rd after Oklahoma lost a congressional district in the 2000 census, and now covers as much land as the other four districts combined.
Money in Politics
Links to more campaign contribution information for Frank Lucas from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site. | Links to more campaign contribution information for Frank Lucas from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site. | Links to more campaign contribution information for Frank Lucas from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site. |
|---|---|---|
| Fundraising profile: | 2006 election cycle | Career totals |
| Top contributors by organization/corporation: | 2006 election cycle | Career totals |
| Top contributors by industry: | 2006 election cycle | Career totals |
Committees and Affiliations
Committees
- House Committee on Agriculture
- Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management
- Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research -Ranking
- House Committee on Financial Services
- Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises
- Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
- House Committee on Science and Technology
- Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
- Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)
- House Committee on Agriculture
- Subcommittee on Conservation Credit Rural Development and Research - Chair
- Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management
- House Committee on Financial Services
- Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
- Subcommittee on Capital Markets Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises
- Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy Trade and Technology
- House Committee on Science
- Subcommittee on Research
- Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
More Background Data
Wikipedia also has an article on Frank Lucas. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.
References
- :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Roll call vote, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Articles and Resources
- Official website
- Open Secrets - 2006 congressional races database
Local blogs and discussion sites
===
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), left, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) are sponsoring bills to revamp how the Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to use science to craft regulations.
Two very special bills are scheduled for consideration in the House of Representatives on Tuesday: one is called the Secret Science Reform Act, and the other is called the Science Advisory Board Reform Act. Taken together, these bills would significantly change how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science to craft regulations intended to protect the environment and public health.
If it became law, the “Secret Science” bill would prohibit the EPA from using science that includes private data, or data that can’t be easily reproduced. Bill sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) says this would stop “hidden and flawed” science from being the basis of EPA regulations, though many scientific organizations have disagreed with the characterization of their data.
“Costly regulations should not be created behind closed doors and out of public view,” Smith said in a statement to ThinkProgress. “This bill works toward a more accountable government that the American people want and deserve.”
The second bill, The Science Advisory Board Reform Act, would change the rules surrounding which scientists are allowed to serve on the Science Advisory Board (SAB), a group that gives scientific advice to the EPA. The SAB reviews the quality of science used to justify EPA regulations, like rules that limit air pollution from power plants. Among other things, the bill sponsored byRep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to advise the agency, and would make it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board.
If the bills sound familiar, that’s because they were both passed by the House last year. In addition to being passed, both bills were strongly criticized by environmentalists and scientists, who said they were based on a misunderstanding of how science works.
With the “Secret Science” bill, for example, approximately 50 scientific societies and universities said the requirements could prohibit many large-scale public health studies because their data “could not realistically be reproduced.” In addition, many studies use private medical data, trade secrets, and industry data that cannot legally be made public.
Republicans in support of the bill assure that the data within the studies can still be used without disclosing personal information or trade secrets. But it wouldn’t be cheap for those studies to meet the bill’s requirements. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the EPA relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies per year, and that meeting the goals of the House “Secret Science” bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per study.
Taking it a step further, many House Democrats criticized the bills as a disingenuous play for “transparency” within the EPA, when all Republicans really want is less EPA regulation.
“It’s a dangerous attack on the power of knowledge,” Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) said on the House floor last November. “Rather than argue with the indisputable facts on air pollution — a losing bet — this bill attempts to discredit the science as secret, when in fact there’s nothing secret about it. The only secret here is the true intent of this bill.”
At least one thing has changed since the bills were considered in 2014. Last year, one of the most controversial portions of the Science Advisory Board bill was the part that says scientists are not allowed to advise the EPA on their own research, as that would count as a conflict of interest.
That section drew considerable outrage from groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, which noted how bizarre it was that scientists were essentially forbidden from sharing their own expertise. “This [bill] effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head,” the group’s director, Andrew A. Rosenberg, said in a letter to Congress.
In the 2015 version of the bill, that section has been changed. Now under the new version, scientists would be allowed to advise the EPA on their own research, but only if “fully disclosed to the public and the work has been externally peer-reviewed.” The bill does not make clear what constitutes an “external” peer-review, or how scientists would be expected to make that public disclosure.
The passage of both bills last year generated some mild fanfare among the environmentalist and scientist communities, but each were unlikely to become law. The Democrat-controlled Senate did not plan to take up a similar bill, and even if it did, President Obama had already threatened to veto it.
Now, with a Republican-controlled Senate that has so far been willing to consider bills President Obama won’t agree to, advancing the “Secret Science” and Science Advisory Board bills do seem a bit more likely. An aide from the House Science committee, which Smith chairs, told ThinkProgress that companion legislation for Smith’s “Secret Science” was introduced in the Senate last week, sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).
The man who would ultimately decide whether to consider the bills in the Senate is Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Though Inhofe hasn’t spoken publicly about the bills, he is one of the EPA’s most outspoken opponents, telling the Washington Post last year that he would “do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA’s unchecked regulations.”
Whether Inhofe will prioritize the bills remains to be seen. His office did not return a request for comment.
==
REPRESENTATIVE (R - OK)
Frank D. Lucas
Committee Assignments:
Agriculture, ChairmanFinancial ServicesScience, Space and Technology
Leadership PAC (1):
Funding Developing Leadership PAC
Cycle Fundraising, 2011 - 2012, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
| Raised: |  $1,188,078 | |
|---|---|---|
| Spent: |  $654,918 | |
| Cash on Hand: |  $791,676 | |
| Debts: |  $0 | |
| Last Report: | Saturday, March 31, 2012 | Saturday, March 31, 2012 |
Top 5 Contributors, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
| Contributor | Total | Indivs | PACs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monsanto Co | $20,000 | $0 | $20,000 |
| Farm Credit Council | $15,000 | $0 | $15,000 |
| CME Group | $15,000 | $0 | $15,000 |
| American Farm Bureau | $14,000 | $0 | $14,000 |
| Devon Energy | $13,500 | $8,500 | $5,000 |
Top 5 Industries, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
| Industry | Total | Indivs | PACs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crop Production & Basic Processing | $174,392 | $46,875 | $127,517 |
| Agricultural Services/Products | $130,250 | $5,750 | $124,500 |
| Dairy | $63,250 | $17,750 | $45,500 |
| Oil & Gas | $58,500 | $14,000 | $44,500 |
| Securities & Investment | $53,250 | $250 | $53,000 |
Total Raised vs. Average Raised
Cycle Source of Funds, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte only
| Individual Contributions - Small Individual Contributions - Large Individual Contributions | $320,591 $32,442 (3%) $288,149 (26%) | (29%) |
|---|---|---|---|
 | PAC Contributions | $746,426 | (68%) |
 | Candidate self-financing | $0 | (0%) |
 | Other | $30,105 | (3%) |
===
2012 "Ag Approps" Gives Props to the "Big 6"
This regulatory victory was not good enough for industry, however. Quietly, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) wrote a gift to biotech companies into the 2013 agriculture appropriations ("Ag Approps") bill. Opponents of GMOs refer to this as the "Monsanto Protection Act." Beneficiaries of Kingston's "rider" to the bill (Section 733) -- such as Monsanto, which lobbied for it in the second quarter of 2012 -- refer to it as the "farmer assurance provision."
If the Ag Approps bill passes as written, if a court removes a GMO from the market after the USDA has deregulated it, the USDA will be required to grant a permit to plant that crop to any farmer who requests one, even if that crop's safety is in question or under review.
Buried Biotech Treasure in the 2012 Farm Bill
At the same time, another far-reaching provision favoring the biotech industry is in the works. Buried in the House version of the 2012 Farm Bill, sponsored byHouse Agriculture Committee chair Frank Lucas (R-OK), is an enormous gift to the biotech industry. The bill changes the Plant Protection Act (PPA) to limit the time and scope of future environmental assessments of GE crops.
The House farm bill as changed by Congressman Lucas alters the legal rules to cut corners on the environmental review by requiring only the more limited EA and by requiring the USDA to complete that review in a maximum period of a year and a half -- or else the GE crop is automatically approved. It also restricts the scope of that limited environmental review and forbids the spending of any money on any broader environmental analysis of the effect of the GMO.