News reports this afternoon indicate that Senate leaders are leaning toward including student loan reforms along with health insurance reform as part of one reconciliation package – a move that would allow Congress to take an up or down vote on legislation that would invest tens of billions of dollars in students instead of banks, without costing taxpayers a dime.

U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House education committee and the author of the student loan reform bill that passed in the House in September, today said he was encouraged by today’s development and that this decision, if finalized, would boost overall support for passing health insurance reform:

“I am encouraged by indications this afternoon that the Senate appears to agree with us that we should join the health and student loan reform bills in one reconciliation package. Supporting students and their families rather than banks is a win-win for our country, is a much better use of taxpayer dollars, and is helpful to passing the overall health reform bill.

“Sen. Harkin and I and many of our colleagues have been making the case that joining these two bills presents a remarkable opportunity for our country. I am encouraged by reports today and I look forward to a final decision on this matter.

“Congress has a history of enacting student loan reforms through the reconciliation process, under both Democratic and Republican Congresses. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush recommended reducing the wasteful subsidies that banks get paid at the expense of students and taxpayers and President Obama made it a priority at the outset of his administration.

“We must not waste this opportunity to fix America’s broken health insurance system and make college much more affordable, at no cost to taxpayers.”

Miller held a press conference with Harkin and other lawmakers earlier today; to watch clips click here.

BACKGROUND

At his press conference earlier today, Miller cleared up several key points of confusion surrounding the student loan reform bill:

• First, any student loan bill that would be included under reconciliation would have to be deficit neutral and return $1 billion in savings to pay down the deficit. Contrary to media reports that the bill could increase the deficit, any investments included under the bill would be entirely paid for.

• Second, the legislation will preserve jobs. For months banks have claimed that switching to Direct Loans would eliminate jobs. They are wrong. The student aid bill would maintain a servicing role for lenders, which will preserve jobs and, unlike in the current system, keep banks from shipping these jobs overseas. Last year, Sallie Mae, one of four private companies that currently services Direct Loans, had to bring 2,000 jobs home from overseas in order to be eligible for the servicing contract.

• Third, it has always been known that student loan reform would move as part of a reconciliation measure. Last year’s House Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2010 included instructions for the House Education and Labor Committee to enact student loan reforms that produce $1 billion in savings to help reduce the deficit over the next five years. In order to meet these reconciliation requirements, any student loan reform will have to help reduce the deficit.

• Fourth, these subsidies to lenders have been identified as wasteful by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In addition to President Clinton and President Obama, who both identified these subsidies as wasteful, President George W. Bush’s 2005, 2006 and 2008 budget proposals called for reducing these federal subsidies to private banks.

• Finally, this is the only opportunity to enact these reforms. As the lawmakers said today, student loan reform must move under these reconciliation instructions – or it won’t happen.

For more information, click here.

BISHOP ANNOUNCES $281,034 IN RECOVERY FUNDING FOR THE VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON

BISHOP ANNOUNCES $70,091 IN RECOVERY FUNDING FOR THE VILLAGE OF BELLPORT

BISHOP ANNOUNCES $403,200 IN RECOVERY FUNDING FOR PORT JEFFERSON UFSD

BISHOP ANNOUNCES $858,668 IN RECOVERY FUNDING FOR WILLIAM FLOYD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT

BISHOP ANNOUNCES $242,028 IN RECOVERY FUNDING FOR ROSS SCHOOL

BISHOP ANNOUNCES $954,766 IN RECOVERY FUNDING FOR THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Washington, D.C.
Thursday, March 11, 2010 -

U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) are leading a bipartisan effort calling on the Obama Administration to carefully consider the threat of one-sided dairy provisions to U.S. dairy farmers and processors in upcoming trade negotiations involving New Zealand. This issue will be discussed at upcoming meetings later this month on the Trans Pacific Partnership to be negotiated with Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and possibly additional countries. In a letter sent to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk today, Feingold, Crapo, Specter and 27 other senators raised concerns that anti-competitive practices in New Zealand’s dairy industry could greatly harm U.S. dairy farmers. In their letter the senators write that New Zealand’s dairy industry is a global power dominated by one company that could undercut the U.S. dairy industry while providing few additional export opportunities for American farmers and processors.

“Past trade agreements have opened opportunities for foreign farmers, including those in New Zealand, but it hasn’t been a two-way street,” Feingold said. “With American dairy farmers facing record low dairy prices, it is exactly the wrong time for another trade agreement that short-changes them. The Obama administration must ensure that any agreement supports the long-term viability of America’s dairy farmers.”

“Our nation’s trade agreements must broaden opportunities for U.S. producers,” said Crapo. “The dairy industry is essential to our economy and communities and deserves just treatment throughout these negotiations.”

Specter said, “With so many challenges facing our nation’s dairy industry, I am concerned about the prospects of exploring trade relations with New Zealand. I question whether negotiations could ensure fair competition and equal opportunity for the thousands of dairy farmers in Pennsylvania and across the nation who are struggling in this tough economic climate.”

A copy of the letter can be viewed here or below.


March 11, 2010


The Honorable Ron Kirk
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508

Dear Ambassador Kirk,

We understand that the first meeting of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement will be held later this month. We write to urge very careful attention to dairy trade concerns in these negotiations.

As you prepare for these negotiations, we wanted to highlight the potential impact of such an agreement on dairy farmers and many processors in the U.S. if U.S.-New Zealand dairy trade is not addressed properly. We have been informed that losses to U.S. dairy producers may total up to $20 billion over the first decade of the agreement if U.S. dairy restrictions on exports from New Zealand are fully phased out in the TPP. Moreover, America’s dairy exporters do not have the prospect of focusing on other significant new opportunities that the agreement would open up given that most other TPP participants are already U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) partners or have relatively limited tariffs and offer only small additional market opportunities.

Despite New Zealand’s small size, its dairy industry is a global power. New Zealand’s dairy industry is dominated by one company that operates as a virtual monopoly in controlling more than 90 percent of the country’ milk production and approximately 40 percent of trade in key internationally traded dairy commodities. In light of this market power, the Administration should consider whether genuine competition is possible as it proceeds with the TPP.

New Zealand has demonstrated its capacity to funnel product to the U.S. market as evidenced by the sizable quantities of milk protein concentrates (MPCs) and casein imported each year into the U.S. from New Zealand. MPC and casein imports enter the U.S. virtually tariff-free and with no volume quotas unlike imported nonfat dry milk, butterfat or most cheeses. The primacy that New Zealand assigns the U.S. market and its ability to devote considerable amounts of its production to exports to the U.S. are clear.

According to testimony submitted recently to the International Trade Commission, imports of New Zealand dairy products facing tariff-rate quota limitations generally account for a relatively small proportion of New Zealand’s total exports of such products. In contrast, New Zealand’s sales of MPC and casein imports to the U.S. market generally account for over fifty percent of its exports of these products to all destinations. Clearly, New Zealand has taken full advantage of all favorable opportunities to grow its dairy exports to the high-value United States market and would likely do so with respect to any additional such opportunities for the even higher-valued, currently tariff rate quota (TRQ)-restricted products if trade in them is expanded under the TPP.

Because of the anti-competitive practices in New Zealand’s dairy industry and the extensive degree of control it wields over world dairy markets to the detriment of the U.S. dairy industry, we are deeply concerned that an expansion of U.S.-New Zealand dairy trade would further open the U.S. to these imports while providing little additional market for American farmers in New Zealand and the other Pacific countries. This prospect is particularly troubling given the record low dairy prices American farmers have faced since late 2008 and the need for our dairy industry to rebuild export markets to help remedy the harm caused by these low prices. As you proceed with negotiations, we ask that you carefully consider and discuss with us how best to address within the TPP this unique threat posing such great potential harm to the future viability of America’s dairy industry.

Sincerely,

Senator Feingold
Senator Crapo
Senator Specter
Senator Bennet
Senator Bingaman
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Burris
Senator Cantwell
Senator Casey
Senator Collins
Senator Feinstein
Senator Franken
Senator Gillibrand
Senator Kerry
Senator Klobuchar
Senator Kohl
Senator Leahy
Senator Levin
Senator McCaskill
Senator Merkley
Senator Murray
Senator Risch
Senator Sanders
Senator Schumer
Senator Shaheen
Senator Snowe
Senator Stabenow
Senator Mark Udall
Senator Tom Udall
Senator Wyden

WASHINGTON (11 March) - U.S. Rep. Gus M. Bilirakis (R-Fla.), representing Florida’s 9th Congressional District, today issued the following statement after the House Republican Conference adopted a unilateral moratorium on earmarks:

"Middle-class families and small businesses across Florida are making sacrifices when it comes to their own budgets, yet Washington continues to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on bailouts and pet projects. This out of control spending is an insult to every hard-working taxpayer, and today I am proud to join with my House Republican colleagues to adopt an immediate ban on all earmarks."

March 11, 2010

Today Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) issued the following statement on financial reform.

 

"On Monday, I will present to my colleagues a substitute to the original financial reform package, unveiled last November."

 

"Over the last few months, Banking Committee members have worked together to try and produce a consensus package. Together we have made significant progress and resolved many of the items, but a few outstanding issues remain."