Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

President Obama: Text of speech The way forward in Afghanistan

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York

8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

Frank Lucas - Cap and trade threatens food and fiber supply

The Ag Minute: Cap & Tax Legislation Threatens Our Safe,
Abundant and Affordable Food & Fiber Supply


WASHINGTON – This week during The Ag Minute Ranking Member Frank Lucas highlights how cap and tax legislation jeopardizes our safe, abundant, and affordable food and fiber supply.
Click here to listen to The Ag Minute. The transcript is below.
"We like to say that we have the safest, most abundant, most affordable food and fiber supply in the world. But this isn't just a boastful expression, it is a reality. Our farmers and ranchers are responsible for feeding folks living in our country and throughout the world.
"But, cap and tax legislation threatens that safe, abundant and affordable food and fiber supply. The agriculture industry, as we know it, will not survive under the heavy burdens of a cap and tax policy.
"This week the Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research will hold two important hearings to learn more about the economic impact of climate change legislation. Witnesses are expected to highlight and discuss various studies that have been completed on the costs of cap and trade on the agriculture industry.
"Although these studies make different assumptions or have different end results, the overwhelming conclusion from each one is that the cost to agriculture is real. Our farmers and ranchers have much to lose and very little, if anything, to gain.
"It is expected that higher energy prices and higher operating costs will decrease farm income anywhere from $5 billion to $50 billion per year. This means that all of us can expect a reduction in our domestic supply of agricultural products and higher food prices.
"My friends, the agriculture industry and rural America cannot afford the devastating economic effects of cap and tax."

California Water allocation hits record low level

California water allocation hits record-low level - Reuters

* Planned 2010 deliveries cut to 5 pct of allotments

* Allocation figure typically raised later

* Cuts forced by drought and environmental restrictions

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES, Dec 1 (Reuters) - California officials said on Tuesday that drought and environmental restrictions have forced them to cut planned water deliveries to irrigation districts and cities statewide to just 5 percent of their contracted allotments.

Although the state Water Resources Department typically ends up supplying more water than first projected for an upcoming year, its 5 percent initial allocation for 2010 marks the smallest on record since the agency began delivering water in 1967.

The level initially set for this year was 15 percent of maximum amounts allowed for delivery under the state's water contracts, but that figure was later raised to 40 percent.

Still, the initial allocation set for 2010 was greeted with alarm by water users up and down a state already beset with chronic budget problems and unemployment levels above the national average.

"On the heels of three years of drought and ongoing regulatory restrictions, we are now bracing for yet another year of painfully limited water supplies," said Laura King Moon, assistant general manager for the State Water Contractors.

By comparison, final water allocations had run closer to 70 percent of requests in the years before the current drought.

Seeking to address California's deepening water crisis, the state Legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reached agreement last month on a landmark package of measures to conserve water and pour billions of dollars into new water infrastructure projects.

The state supplies more than 25 million people and over 750,000 acres (300,000 hectares) of farmland with water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in northern California, fed by rainfall and snow-melt runoff from the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

That water is delivered to municipalities and irrigation districts throughout California by way of a sprawling network of reservoirs, pipelines, aqueducts and pumping stations known as the State Water Project.

But the prolonged drought, the worst in state history, has depleted the Sierra snowpack and reservoir levels. Complicating matters are federal restrictions on delta pumping levels in order to protect endangered fish species.

The water shortage has forced California cities large and small to ration supplies and idled large tracts of cropland in the state's Central Valley, which has long produced over half the fruit, vegetables and nuts grown in the United States.

Congress scrambles to extend estate tax

Congress scrambles to extend estate tax - AP

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (AP)

WASHINGTON — Next year had been shaping up as a great year to get a big inheritance — no federal taxes on it. Congress, however, has other plans for the few wealthy heirs expecting a big boon. Uncle Sam may take a 45 percent cut after all.

Under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to temporarily disappear next year before returning in 2011 at an even higher rate. But the House is expected to vote as early as Thursday on a bill that would permanently extend the current top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than $3.5 million.

Estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the tax, and married couples, with a little estate planning, could exempt a total of $7 million from the tax. That leaves less than 1 percent of all estates subject to the tax this year.

The Senate is considering similar legislation, though senators are busy trying to overhaul health care, meaning they will probably have to scramble to address the estate tax by the end of the year.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said it is important to set a permanent estate tax so rich families and small business owners can plan accordingly. He said exempting estates as large as $3.5 million from the tax will protect all but the wealthiest Americans.

The quirk in the law, in which the estate tax would disappear for only a year, came out of a series of tax cuts enacted in 2001. Many Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time, wanted to permanently repeal the estate tax, but they settled on a gradual reduction, with a one-year repeal, to reduce the impact on the federal budget deficit.

Under current law, the estate tax would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and top rate of 55 percent, unless Congress acts.

Permanently extending the tax with a top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than $3.5 million would raise about $14 billion a year. However, it would raise less than current law over the next 10 years — an estimated $234 billion less. The lost revenue would be covered with increased borrowing.

Some Republicans and small business groups want to permanently repeal the estate tax, which they have labeled a "death tax."

"I don't think death in and of itself should be a taxable event," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Camp said he is concerned that the $3.5 million exemption would not be indexed for inflation, meaning more and more estates would be subject to the tax in the future.

Currently, the tax affects few estates. In 2009, about 5,500 estates will be subject to the tax, according to projections from the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. That's 0.23 percent of all estates.

Nevertheless, the issue has gained political traction.

Some opponents simply don't know how few people get hit by the tax, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "The only thing I can figure is, they think they're going to hit the lottery, and they don't want to be hit" by the tax.

Dick Patten, president of the American Family Business Institute, an organization formed to fight the estate tax, said the tax hits small businesses with a lot of expensive equipment.

"If you've got a smaller business that's much more service oriented, $3.5 million probably allows you to escape under the line," Patten said. "But if you have any kind of business that requires capital, then this puts your business at risk."

Texas toy drive checks immigration status

Texas toy drive checks immigration status - www.alternet.org/blogs



Several charities in the Houston area are checking the immigration status of needy families before giving out toys this holiday season. The charities claim that given the jump in demand this year — over 30,000 children have registered with the Salvation Army’s Angel Tree program, an increase of over 20 percent from last year — they want to be “good stewards” and get the donations to people who are in the country legally. From the Houston Chronicle:

In a year when more families than ever have asked for help, several programs providing Christmas gifts for needy children require at least one member of the household to be a U.S. citizen. Others ask for proof of income or rely on churches and schools to suggest recipients. The Salvation Army and a charity affiliated with the Houston Fire Department are among those that consider immigration status, asking for birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [...]

The Outreach Program requires parents to show photo identification and birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [The Outreach Program's Lorugene] Young said she makes an exception if parents can show they have applied for legal status or that a child is enrolled in school.

Labels:

Senate Digest: Committee meetings Dec. 1-5

Week of December 1 through December 5, 2009
Note that the House Committee on Ag considers climate change Dec. 2.....


Senate Chamber

On Tuesday, at approximately 10 a.m., Senate will continue consideration of H.R. 3590, Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act; following which, at 11:30 a.m., Senate will begin consideration of the nomination of Jacqueline H. Nguyen, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, and after a period of debate, vote on confirmation of the nomination at approximately 12 noon.
During the balance of the week, Senate may consider any cleared legislative and executive business.

Senate Committees


(Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: December 2, to hold hearings to examine over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives reform and addressing systemic risk, 9:30 a.m., SH-216.
Committee on Armed Services: December 2, to hold hearings to examine Afghanistan, 9 a.m., SD-106.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: December 3, to hold hearings to examine the nomination of Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 10 a.m., SD-106.

[Page: D1375] GPO's PDF

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: December 1, Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, to hold hearings to examine aviation safety, focusing on pilot fatigue, 10:15 a.m., SR-253.

December 2, Full Committee, to hold hearings to examine transportation security challenges post-9/11, 10 a.m., SR-253.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: December 2, to hold hearings to examine policy options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 10 a.m., SD-366.

December 3, Full Committee, to hold hearings to examine H.R. 3276, to promote the production of molybdenum-99 in the United States for medical isotope production, and to condition and phase out the export of highly enriched uranium for the production of medical isotopes, 10 a.m., SD-366.

December 3, Subcommittee on National Parks, to hold hearings to examine S. 760, to designate the Liberty Memorial at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``National World War I Memorial'', S. 1838, to establish a commission to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, S. 2097, to authorize the rededication of the District of Columbia War Memorial as a National and District of Columbia World War I Memorial to honor the sacrifices made by American veterans of World War I, S. 2722, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of adding the Heart Mountain Relocation Center, in the State of Wyoming, as a unit of the National Park System, S. 2726, to modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, S. 2738, to authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and justice for all during the American Revolution, H.R. 1849, to designate the Liberty Memorial at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the National World War I Memorial, to establish the World War I centennial commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, and H.R. 3689, to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor center, 2:30 p.m., SD-366.
Committee on Environment and Public Works: December 2, with the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, to hold an oversight hearing to examine the Federal Toxic and Substances Control Act, 2:30 p.m., SD-406.

December 3, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, to hold hearings to examine S. 373, to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal, S. 1519, to provide for the eradication and control of nutria in Maryland, Louisiana, and other coastal States, S. 1421, to amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation and shipment of certain species of carp, S. 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the State of Louisiana for a pilot program to develop measures to eradicate or control feral swine and to assess and restore wetlands damaged by feral swine, H.R. 2188, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to conduct a Joint Venture Program to protect, restore, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations, their habitats, and the ecosystems they rely on, through voluntary actions on public and private lands, S. 1214, to conserve fish and aquatic communities in the United States through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation, to improve the quality of life for the people of the United States, H.R. 3537, to amend and reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, H.R. 3433, to amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to establish requirements regarding payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of wetlands conservation projects in Canada that are funded under that Act, and H.R. 509, to reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004, 2 p.m., SD-406.
Committee on Foreign Relations: December 1, to hold hearings to examine the nomination of Rajiv J. Shah, of Washington, to be Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, 10 a.m., SD-419.

December 1, Full Committee, to hold hearings to examine the nominations of Anne Slaughter Andrew, of Indiana, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Costa Rica, David Daniel Nelson, of Minnesota, to be Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Betty E. King, of New York, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank of Ambassador, Laura E. Kennedy, of New York, for the rank of Ambassador during her tenure of service as United States Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, and Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, of California, for the rank of Ambassador during her tenure of service as the United States Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council, all of the Department of State, 2:30 p.m., SD-419.

December 3, Full Committee, to hold hearings to examine Afghanistan, focusing on assessing the road ahead, 9 a.m., SH-216.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: December 1, business meeting to consider the nomination of Alan C. Kessler, of Pennsylvania, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service, 12 noon, S-216, Capitol.

December 2, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, to hold hearings to examine disaster case management, focusing on developing a comprehensive national program focused on outcomes, 2:30 p.m., SD-342.

December 3, Full Committee, to hold hearings to examine the nomination of Caryn A. Wagner, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, 10 a.m., SD-342.
Committee on Indian Affairs: December 3, business meeting to consider pending calendar business; to be immediately followed by an oversight hearing to examine expanding dental health care in Indian Country; to be immediately followed by an oversight hearing to examine Contract Health Services, 2:15 p.m., SD-628.

[Page: D1376] GPO's PDF

Committee on the Judiciary: December 1, to hold hearings to examine the nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson, of Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, 10 a.m., SD-226.

December 2, Full Committee, to hold hearings to examine the Supreme Court, focusing on Americans' access to courts, 10 a.m., SD-226.

December 3, Full Committee, business meeting to consider S. 448, to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media, S. 714, to establish the National Criminal Justice Commission, S. 1624, to amend title 11 of the United States Code, to provide protection for medical debt homeowners, to restore bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill, injured, or disabled family members, and to exempt from means testing debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems, S. 1765, to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless, S. 1353, to amend title 1 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986 to include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air ambulance crew members and first responders for certain benefits, S. 678, to reauthorize and improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and the nominations of Thomas I. Vanaskie, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Louis B. Butler, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin, Denny Chin, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Rosanna Malouf Peterson, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, and William M. Conley, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin, and Susan B. Carbon, of New Hampshire, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, John H. Laub, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the National Institute of Justice, Sharon Jeanette Lubinski, to be United States Marshal for the District of Minnesota, Mary Elizabeth Phillips, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Sanford C. Coats, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Stephen James Smith, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Georgia, all of the Department of Justice, 10 a.m., SD-226.
Select Committee on Intelligence: December 1, to hold hearings to examine the nominations of Philip S. Goldberg, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, and Caryn A. Wagner, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, 2:30 p.m., SH-216.

December 3, Full Committee, to hold closed hearings to consider certain intelligence matters, 2:30 p.m., S-407, Capitol.

House Committees


Committee on Agriculture, December 2, Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research, hearing to review the potential economic impacts of climate change on the farm sector, 10 a.m., 1300 Longworth.

December 3, Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research, hearing to review the costs and benefits of agriculture offsets, 10 a.m., 1300 Longworth.
Committee on Armed Services, December 2, hearing on assessing the Guam war claims process, 1 p.m., HVC.

December 2, Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, joint hearing on The New Walter Reed: Are We on The Right Track? 10 a.m., 210 HVC.

December 3, full Committee, hearing on Afghanistan: The Results of the Strategic Review,'' 1 p.m., 210 HVC.
Committee on Education and Labor, December 2, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, hearing on Examining the Delphi Bankruptcy's Impact on Workers and Retirees, 10:30 2175 Rayburn.
Committee on Energy and Commerce, December 2, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, hearing on Impacts of H.R. 3795, Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009, on Energy Markets, 1 p.m., 2322 Rayburn.

December 2, Subcommittee on Health, hearing entitled ``Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations'' 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn.

December 3, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, hearing on the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act, 10 a.m., 2322 Rayburn.
Committee on Financial Services, December 2, to continue markup of the following bills: H.R. 3996, Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009; and H.R. 2609, Federal Insurance Office Act of 2009, 9:30 a.m., followed by a hearing entitled ``FY09 FHA Actuarial Report,'' 10:30 a.m., 2128 Rayburn.

December 3, hearing on the following bills: H.R. 2266, Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act; and H.R. 2267, Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, 10 a.m., 2128 Rayburn.
Committee on Foreign Affairs, December 2, hearing on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan, 1:30 p.m., 2172 Rayburn.

December 3, Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, hearing on Sudan: A review of the Administrations' New Policy and A Situation Update, 10 a.m., 2172 Rayburn.
Committee on Homeland Security, December 3, hearing entitled ``The United States Secret Service and Presidential Protection: An Examination of a System Failure,'' 10 a.m., 311 Cannon.
Committee on the Judiciary, December 3, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, hearing on Protecting Employees in Airline Bankruptcies, 1:30 p.m., 2237 Rayburn.

December 3, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, hearing on the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, 10 a.m., 2141 Rayburn.
Committee on Natural Resources, December 2, hearing on H.R. 725, Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009, 10 a.m., 1324 Longworth.
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, December 2, hearing entitled ``Will Arbitron's Personal People D1377Meter Silence Minority Owned Radio Stations?'' 10 a.m., 2154 Rayburn.

[Page: D1377] GPO's PDF

December 2, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, hearing entitled ``The 2010 Census: How Complete Count Committees, Local Governments, Philanthropic Organizations, Not-for-Profits, and the Business Community Can Contribute to a Successful Census,'' 2 p.m., 2154 Rayburn.

December 3, full Committee, hearing entitled ``Post-Katrina Recovery: Restoring Health Care in the New Orleans Region,'' 10 a.m., 2154 Rayburn.
Committee on Rules, December 2, to consider H.R. 4154, Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009, 3 p.m., H-313 Capitol.
Committee on Science and Technology, December 2, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, hearing on Ensuring the Safety of Human Space Flight, 10 a.m., 2318 Rayburn.

December 3, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, hearing on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Finding the Path to Commercialization, 10 a.m., 2318 Rayburn.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, December 2, Subcommittee on Aviation, hearing on Commercial Space Transportation, 10 a.m., 2167 Rayburn.

December 2, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, hearing on Stimulus Tracking Number 4: Ensuring Money Means Security when Building GSA Border Stations to Protect the U.S.A., 2 p.m., 2167 Rayburn.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, December 2, hearing on VA Health Care Funding: Appropriations to Programs, 10 a.m., 334 Cannon.
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, December 2, hearing entitled ``The Administration's View on the State of Climate Science,'' 10 a.m., B-318 Rayburn.

Joint Meetings


Joint Economic Committee: December 4, to hold hearings to examine the employment situation for November 2009, 9:30 a.m., SH-216.
Joint Economic Committee: December 2, to hold hearings to examine unregulated markets, focusing on regulatory reform in the financial sector, 10 a.m., 210, Cannon Building.

Mexico Fresh Deciduous Fruit Annual 2009 - USDA FAS

Mexico Fresh Deciduous Fruit Annual 2009

Fruit Production: Apple production in Mexico for MY 2009/10 (August/July) is forecast at 553,000 metric tons (MT), an eight percent increase compared to the MY 2008/09 production, due to excellent weather conditions in Chihuahua, the main apple producing state. Apple imports for MY 2009/10 are forecast to decrease about 13 percent from the MY 2008/09 level as a result of lower demand for imported fruit and expected higher prices. This estimate will depend heavily on the peso/dollar exchange rate. Total pear production is forecast at 20,110 MT for MY 2009/10 (July/June), which is a marginal increase compared to MY 2008/09. However, pear production is not expected to show significant increases since growers are not heavily investing in this crop due to the high cost of production. U.S. table grape exports will continue to suffer due to the 45-percent tariff imposed in retaliation for cancellation of the U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project. Total table grape production for MY 2009/10 (May/April) is forecast to decrease to 171,309 MT due to lower acreage in production even though there were no serious weather problems. Commodities: Apples, Fresh Pears, Fresh Grapes, Table, Fresh Production:

APPLES Apple production in Mexico for MY 2009/10 (August/July) is forecast at 553,000 metric tons (MT), an eight percent increase compared to MY 2008/09 production. Trade sources indicate that Chihuahua, the main apple producing state, enjoyed good weather conditions, more acreage coming into production, and a high year in the production cycle. Hailstorms were few and did little if any damage to the fruit. Apple production estimates for MY 2007/08 and 2008/09 were revised downward as freezing temperatures and hailstorms during the flowering season affected yields and fruit quality. The national average yield for MY 2008/09 is forecast at 9.3 MT/ha. Yields in Chihuahua are forecast at a minimum of 15-17 MT/ha. The state of Chihuahua accounts for 43 percent of total area planted while Durango accounts for 17 percent. Coahuila and Puebla account for 12 percent each. Producers in Chihuahua generally use more advanced production technology and typically yield higher quality apples than the other states. In fact, large-scale and technologically sophisticated growers in Chihuahua are planting or renewing old orchards with higher tree densities. According to growers, about 40 percent of the apple area in Chihuahua utilizes advanced technology. However, growers also indicated that the area planted in Mexico is not expected to grow much due to higher costs of production, and limited credit and water availability. Growers affected by lower prices have a tendency to abandon groves. Total area planted for MY 2009/10 is forecast to remain almost similar to that of MY 2008/09. Area planted for MY 2008/09 had a marginal increase from previous estimates and the MY 2007/08 planted area was revised downward based on official data. Area harvested for MY 2007/08 and 2008/09 was revised downward based on official data. The new apple crop in Chihuahua entered the market in mid-August starting with the Gala and Golden Supreme varieties. Near the end of August, the Red Delicious apples started harvest. Rome Beauty apples are usually harvested in October. Yields are forecast to continue to increase due to increased density in planted areas. In order to remain competitive, producers in Chihuahua are replacing a number of older orchards with higher yielding (about 80 tons/ha) and higher density apple trees (800 trees/ha or more) by using advanced technology and newer irrigation systems. According to growers, almost 50 percent of the area in Chihuahua is planted with the Golden Delicious variety and 40 percent with the Red Delicious variety. The Gala variety area includes about five percent of the total planted area in Chihuahua and continues to grow. High-density varieties account for approximately 25 percent of Chihuahua’s planted area.

The remainder of the apple producing area is planted at more traditional spacing of 200-300 trees per hectare. Most areas in Chihuahua and Durango are irrigated. Grower prices for Red and Golden Delicious apples in Chihuahua for MY 2009/10 in mid-August was between 3.00 and 3.15 pesos/kg (US$0.22 and $0.23/kg). This is low due to the large volume of apples harvested. However, grower prices for the Gala variety and the Golden Supreme variety, which are harvested in early August, command higher prices of between 7 to 9 pesos/kg (US$0.52 to $0.66 /kg) because they rarely compete with imported apples. Grower prices for Red and Golden Delicious apples in Chihuahua for MY 2008/09 started in mid-August 2008 at 6.50 to 7.00 pesos/kg (US$0.64 to $0.69/kg). Costs of production typically range from 28,000 to 40,000 pesos/ha (US$2,075 to $2,962/ha). Production costs will increase depending on whether growers have frost protection equipment and new irrigation systems. According to producers, electricity, gas, and packing costs (the last of which depend on foreign inputs), continue to rise compared to MY 2007/08.

PEARS
Pear production in Mexico is extremely limited. Therefore, the Secretariat of Agriculture only publishes pear production data on an annual basis.
Total pear production is forecast at 20,110 MT for MY 2009/10 (July/June), which is a marginal increase compared to MY 2008/09. Pear production is not expected to show significant increases since growers are not heavily investing in this crop due to the high cost of production. Pear production for MY 2008/09 was revised downward from previous estimates as there was less area harvested than previously estimated. MY 2007/08 pear production was also revised downward based on official data. Approximately 87 percent of the area planted in Mexico is rain fed. Michoacán, Puebla, and Morelos are Mexico’s major pear producing states and account for 76 percent of total Mexican production. According to official data, the state of Puebla has reduced pear plantings more than 20 percent for MY 2008/09. Lack of investment, high costs of production, scarce water supplies in pear producing regions, and disease problems have limited production growth. However, some growers have started to experiment with planting more disease-resistant and longer shelf-life varieties. Area planted and harvested for MY 2009/10 is not expected to change much from MY 2008/09 area. Planted area and harvested area for MY 2008/09 were revised downward based on preliminary data reflecting the abandonment of some orchards. Data for area planted and harvested for MY 2007/08 were revised downward based on official data.

TABLE GRAPES Total table grape production for MY 2009/10 (May/April) is forecast to decrease to 171,309 MT due to lower acreage in production even though there were no serious weather problems. Total production is difficult to determine since price relationships among table grapes, raisin grapes, and industrial grapes attract more grapes into or out of each market. Production for MY 2008/09 was revised downward since the table grape industry lost about 13 percent of its vineyards due to higher costs of production as well as unfavorable weather issues.

Table grape production for MY 2007/08 was revised upward based on official data. Area planted for MY 2009/10 is forecast to be marginally lower compared to MY 2008/09 due to higher costs of production resulting from adverse exchange rates. However, the good export season and excellent international prices could encourage producers to continue with the same acreage as the last marketing year. Growth in area planted is somewhat restricted since the costs of production are high and water availability is limited. Area planted and area harvested for MY 2008/09 were revised downward since some producers lost profits due to the adverse exchange rates and higher costs of production. Many left grape production for other crops. Area planted and area harvested for MY 2007/08 were revised downward based on official data. The state of Sonora accounts for approximately 82 percent of the total area planted to table grapes. Market and growing conditions are favorable, but a lack of water continues to limit aggressive expansion as all area for table grapes is irrigated. The national average yield for MY 2009/10 is forecast to reach 10.9 MT/ha, but it is largely dependent on cultural practices. The national average yield for MY 2008/09 is estimated at 11.3 MT/ha due to better weather. According to producers, in 2007 the cost of production in Sonora was between US$7,000/ha and $10,000/ha, depending on inputs. However, due to the unfavorable peso/dollar exchange rate and rising costs, producers indicate that costs of production for 2008 were between US$12,000/ha to $15,000/ha. Producers indicate that expansion is limited, mainly by low water availability from aquifers in Sonora. As a result, producers are trying to become more efficient by increasing yields instead of increasing acreage. The high cost of production and high interest rates for credit also limit table grape expansion. In fact, producers state that the only credit to which they have access comes from U.S. brokers and distributors, who give them advance payments for harvesting and packing table grapes. Some of the main varieties that Mexico produces include Perlette, Flame, Sugraone, and Red Globe.

Consumption: APPLES

Apple consumption for MY 2009/10 is forecast to be nearly the same as in MY 2008/09 as the Mexican consumer’s purchasing power has been decreasing. Since the world economic crisis, the Mexican peso has depreciated and this could slow down consumption of imported product. Despite low domestic production, consumption for MY 2008/09 was revised upward due to high demand at good prices. The U.S. crop was one of the highest in the past few years and prices were very good at the end of the first quarter. Consumption for MY 2007/08 was revised downward due to less demand and higher prices. Wholesale prices are not expected to fluctuate for the following months unless exchange rates change drastically. Many harvested apples in Chihuahua do not reach the fresh market in October since they go directly to cold storage in order to be sold gradually in the following months. Wholesale prices for the domestic crop are beginning at lower prices compared to the last crop. Retail prices in November 2009 for apples were: 21.50 pesos/kg (US$1.57) for Starking apples from Chihuahua, 25.90 pesos/kg (US$ 1.90/kg) for U.S. Starking apples, 17.90 pesos/kg (US$1.31/kg) Golden Delicious from Chihuahua, and 32.90 pesos/kg (US$2.41/kg)for U.S. Gala apples.

PEARS The domestic supply continues to rely on imports, mainly from the United States. Pear consumption for MY 2009/10 is forecast to increase only marginally from MY 2008/09 consumption because consumer purchasing power has weakened. Coupled with this is the depreciation of the Mexican peso relative to the dollar. Domestic consumption for MY 2008/09 was revised downward from previous estimates as pear quality was not as good as in past seasons and prices were higher. The depreciation of the peso increased prices in pesos for imported fruit, and therefore demand was not as strong as in MY 2007/08. MY 2007/08 consumption was revised downward but still reflects high demand at good prices. Wholesale prices for U.S. pears in Mexico were, on average, higher for MY 2008/09 compared to MY 2007/08 prices. Wholesale prices for U.S. pears for MY 2009/10 began also at higher levels compared to the previous year; U.S. Anjou pears for September 2009 were priced at US$32.00 per 18-kg/box and by November 2009 prices were about US$30.00 per box. Anjou pears continue to be the most sought variety in the market followed by the Bosc, Bartlett, and the Red Anjou varieties. Other varieties of pears are not yet in high demand by consumers in Mexico. Retail prices in November 2009 for imported D’anjou pears were 28.90 pesos/kg (US$2.12/kg) and 23.50/kg (US$1.72/kg) for Bartlet pears.

TABLE GRAPES
Table grape consumption for MY 2009/10 is forecast to be about 17 percent lower compared to MY 2008/09 due to decreased domestic purchasing power, the exchange rate, higher tariffs, and higher prices. The volume of Mexican grapes in the market will ultimately depend on the volume exported since producers tend to serve the international market first. MY 2008/09 consumption is forecast to be 5.2 percent lower compared to MY 2007/08 due to decreased domestic purchasing power and higher prices. The consumption estimate for MY 2007/08 was revised upward due a stronger demand and more affordable prices, mainly for the domestic crop. The consumption estimate for MY 2006/07 remains unchanged. At the beginning of the 2008 season, wholesale table grape prices were higher compared to MY 2007/08. July 2008 prices for Perlette grapes were approximately US$11.42/ 8 kg box, for Flame Seedless US$10.54/box, and for Superior grapes approximately US$12.85/ box - all from the state of Sonora. Imported Globe grapes cost approximately US$17.04/ 8 kg box. However, prices for the last quarter of 2008 are expected to increase due to the depreciation of the Mexican peso against the U.S. dollar. The Perlette variety is the most preferred variety by consumers followed by the Red Globe and the Superior varieties. Retail price for imported white seedless grapes were 57.90 pesos/kg (US$4.24/kg) and 25.90 pesos/kg (US$1.90/kg) for Mexican Red Globe grapes.

Trade: APPLES Apple imports for MY 2009/10 are forecast to decrease about 13 percent from MY 2008/09 imports as a result of lower demand for imported fruit and expected higher prices and a higher supply of domestic apples at lower prices. However, this estimate will depend heavily on the exchange rate with the U.S. dollar. The Mexican peso has been fluctuating against the U.S. dollar, which has negatively affected demand and imports. Traders are very cautious about buying imported fruit in large volumes. Import estimates for MY 2008/09 were revised upward by 13 percent due to higher demand for fruit. This was a good export year for the U.S. crop and prices for imported apples were good (340 pesos/18 kg box –US$24.57/box) at the end of the first quarter. More than 90 percent of imports were from the United States. However, mitigation measures requested by Mexican plant health authorities in June 2009 almost stopped apple exports for the 2009 season from the state of California due to concerns about the presence of the light brown apple moth pest in certain counties. The California apple export season had ended by the time the matter was resolved. Import estimates for MY 2007/08 were revised downward due to less demand and higher prices. Anti-dumping duties imposed on U.S. Red and Golden Delicious apples continue to affect imports. Nevertheless, imports continue to supply the market due to strong demand and imports by companies that pay zero duty. On November 2, 2006, the Secretariat of Economy (SE) announced final resolution of the antidumping investigation of Red and Golden Delicious varieties from the United States. Depending on the company, duties can go from 0 to 47.05 percent. Most of the Northwest Fruit Exporters (NFE) member companies fall under the 47.05 duty. However, recently a small number of Mexican fruit importing companies petitioned the SE to revoke the August 12, 2002, final resolution on anti-dumping duties on Red and Golden Delicious apples shipped by non-Northwest Fruit Exporters (NFE) companies. The petition was resolved favorably, and on July 3, 2007, SE announced in the Diario Oficial (Federal Register) that the Final Resolution on the antidumping case on Red and Golden Delicious Apples, published on August 12, 2002, was cancelled. The cancellation of this resolution essentially meant that non-Northwest Fruit Exporters (NFE) companies are no longer subject to a compensatory duty when exporting Red and Golden Delicious apples to Mexico. (See reports MX6094 and MX7050) Despite the anti-dumping duties on apples from NFE members, most of the imports will continue to come from Washington State. U.S. apples not of the Red and Golden Delicious varieties are not subject to duty. However, Red and Golden Delicious varieties continue to account for the bulk of U.S. apple exports to Mexico. Apple varieties like Gala, Rome Beauty, Jonagold, and Pink Lady, are being imported at more affordable prices but in much smaller quantities. While Mexican consumers like the size and color of U.S. apples, Mexican apples are said to be sweeter. The U.S. apple industry will also continue to face strong competition from other countries, such as Chile and Canada. Apples from Argentina continue to be imported, but not in significant volumes.

PEARS
Pear imports for MY 2009/10 are forecast to increase about 2.5 percent compared to MY 2008/09 as U.S. pear production is expected to be slightly higher. However, this will also depend on prices and the depreciation of the Mexican peso, which unfortunately has fallen from an exchange rate of 10.61 pesos to the dollar in September 2008 to 13.41 pesos to the dollar in September 2009. New duties imposed on pears of 20 percent in retaliation over the dissolution of the U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project, (see MX9010), will cut into imports. Current shipping levels indicate that the reduction in volume may be as much as 18 to 20 percent compared to prior years. The import estimate for pears for MY 2008/09 was revised downward from previous estimates reflecting lower demand and higher prices. Import estimates for MY 2007/08 were revised upward due to higher demand. Approximately 80 percent or more of demand has historically been met by imported product, mainly from the United States. U.S. Bartlett pears are usually imported from July to September while U.S. Anjou pears are imported towards the end of September and October. The presence of Chilean and Argentinean pears is limited in the Mexican market, but they are of fair to good quality and are usually priced lower than U.S. pears. During MY 2008/09, U.S. pears met 89 percent of demand while Argentinean pears accounted for 9. Under different trade agreements, the import duty on pears from the United States, Chile, and Argentina is zero. China has been exporting pears to the Mexican market, but volumes are still not significant.

TABLE GRAPES
Table grape imports for MY 2009/10 are forecast to decrease due to the new duties imposed on grapes of 45 percent in retaliation over the dissolution of the U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project (see MX9010). Table grape importers believe that imports could decrease from 35 to 45 percent compared to the last marketing year. In the 2008 season (May through January) Mexico was the table grape industry’s second largest export market and represented 15 percent of total export volume. Total exports last year to Mexico reached a record high in terms of volume and value. Not only does Mexico grow grapes that compete in the early part of California’s season, Mexico also imports large volumes from Chile. Chile’s grape production is primarily counter-seasonal but Chilean grapes are also available during California’s early and late season periods. According to the U.S. industry, with such a large tariff increase, it is expected that Mexican importers and retailers will prefer Chilean to Californian grapes. This could effectively reduce the California table grape industry’s shipping period by approximately one-third. The Mexican table grape producers are lobbying within their government to find a solution to this tariff increase since grapes will not be available for the public all year round. Consumers would then be forced to choose an alternative, lower-priced fruit instead. Table grape imports for MY 2008/09 were revised slightly upward due to unexpected higher demand. However, the prevailing unstable exchange rate at the time slowed down trade. Imports for MY 2007/08 were revised downward due to lower demand for imported grapes at high prices. U.S. and Chilean imports have a zero tariff rate, and both countries continue to increase exports to the Mexican market. According to traders, U.S. promotional efforts to export table grape varieties to Mexico, other than Red Globe or Thompson, show good results. U.S. table grapes may only be imported from California due to Mexico’s phytosanitary restrictions on table grapes from other U.S. states. Table grape exports for MY 2009/10 are forecast to be 13.7 percent lower compared to MY 2008/09 due to a reduced production. However, final numbers could be higher; domestic producers indicate it was a very good export year owing to favorable prices in the international market. Export estimates for MY 2007/08 and MY 2008/09 were revised slightly upward from previous estimates due to a stronger demand. Most of Mexico’s table grapes are exported to the United States. Growers indicated that export f.o.b. prices at the beginning of the season, May 2008, were on average around US$28-30/8-kg box of Perlettes, and approximately US$32-$35/box for flame seedless. During the peak season in the United States, which starts at the end of May, prices decreased to US$19/box for Perlette and US$30/box for Flame. Mexican export prices usually range between US$14 and $16/box. U.S. and Chilean table grape production seasons differ, and there is no significant direct competition between grapes from these countries. U.S. suppliers export to Mexico from January to February and from August to December, before and after the Mexican season. Chile usually exports from January to April and from June to July. Under the Mexico-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Chilean table grapes enter duty-free all year round. The Mexico–European Union (EU) Trade Agreement, signed in 2000, has a duty phase-out plan, and the grape tariff on Mexican table grapes exported to the EU decreased to zero in 2008. Mexico has not taken full advantage of this agreement since most of its grapes are being exported to the United States, a more profitable market.

Policy: Under Mexican law any company that believes it has not been exporting using unfair practices can request the Secretary of Economy (SE) to review its case and obtain a lower or null compensatory duty. To that end, on November 30, 2007, a group of U.S. apple importers requested that Mexican authorities review their prices and duties. The seven companies initiating this review were Cowiche Growers Inc., CPC International Apple Co., Jack Frost Fruit Company, Inc., Matson Fruit Co. Monson Fruit Company Inc., Yakima Fruit and Cold Storage Co., Inc. and Zirkle. On November 14, 2008, the SE announced in the Diario Oficial (Federal Register) the resolution that initiates the annual review of the compensatory quotas imposed on the seven companies as well as the calculation of their individual margin of price discrimination according to the Mexican Law. (See report MX8077) On October 5, 2009, the SE published a preliminary resolution indicating that due to insufficiency of information from the different companies, the SE was not able to determine a normal value that is comparable to the export price in terms of the Law of Foreign Trade and of the Antidumping Agreement. Therefore, it could not determine a specific margin of price discrimination specific to each apple importing company. As a result, the resolution indicates that the administrative review procedure continues, but that the compensatory duty of 47.05 will be maintained. (See Report MX9074) However, during a public hearing held in Mexico City by a bi-national NAFTA dispute panel on the U.S.-Mexico anti-dumping case, officials from the SE stated that the panel should be ready to issue a final ruling in the first quarter of 2009. The long-running dispute began in 1996 when Mexican apple producers from Chihuahua accused U.S. apple importers of dumping. In 2006, Mexican authorities imposed a duty of 46 percent on U.S. imports, but the National Fruit Exporters Association appealed this decision under chapter 19 of NAFTA. Finally, SE published an announcement in the Diario Oficial (Federal Register) on November 4, 2009, with the final decision of the NAFTA Panel regarding the antidumping Investigation on imports of apples from the U.S. The Panel is sending this matter to SE with instruction to re-issue a new final determination by the end of December 2009. The NAFTA tariffs for U.S. and Canadian apples were completely lifted as of January 1, 2003, bringing the duty to zero. Under the Chile-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, imported Chilean apples began to enter duty free as of January 1, 2006. Apples from other countries are subject to a 20-percent duty. During a trade mission to China, the Mexican government established protocols and agreements with the Chinese government to begin trade operations. Among the products to be imported from China to Mexico are fruits and vegetables, including apples. The domestic industry does not anticipate significant competition since the apple variety from China, Fuji, is still not widely accepted by the domestic consumer.

Marketing: APPLES
Despite the antidumping duties, the United States is expected to remain the main apple exporter to Mexico. The U.S. apple industry’s continued marketing and in-store promotion efforts have significantly contributed to creating a market for U.S. apples in Mexico. Strong U.S. apple import months are from January to May, although the United States starts shipping in smaller volumes in November. Canadian apples are imported from November to January, and Chilean apples are typically imported from March to June. Chilean apples do not compete directly with Mexican apples since they do not enter the market at the height of Mexico’s marketing year. Mexican apples are strongly marketed from September through December, but many are kept in cold storage to be used during the early months of the year, thus competing more directly with the United States. Mexican consumers still prefer the Red and Golden Delicious varieties. Commercially, these two varieties have a competitive advantage over others because of their longer shelf life. Another variety widely demanded by consumers is the Rome Beauty, which is mainly used for baking and cooking. Lately, the Royal Gala has become more attractive to the Mexican consumer and is being sold in most supermarkets. Chilean producers are also marketing the Royal Gala variety in Mexico. Mexican producers continue to increase market promotions. Chilean producers have also been working aggressively to penetrate the Mexican market, and they have introduced several varietal characteristics in an effort to target different population groups. The Chilean promotion strategy focuses on price more than on quality.

PEARS
The United States remains Mexico’s main pear supplier. Market promotion efforts for U.S. pears continue in several Mexican cities, supermarkets, and street markets. However, the wholesale markets remain the most important fruit distribution channel in Mexico. According to traders, in-store promotions have helped increase sales. Most of the imported pears are from Washington, Oregon, and California. Due to limited production, Mexican pears are almost exclusively sold through local, small markets. Few are sold through supermarkets. One of the Mexican pear varieties, which consumers tend to prefer, is the Kiefer variety, better known as Pera Piña. However, low production precludes the Pera Piña from having a significant market presence.

TABLE GRAPES
The Unites States is expected to remain Mexico’s main supplier of table grapes, helped by market promotion efforts by U.S. table grape exporters. The U.S. promotional efforts to market different table grape varieties have resulted in an increase in imports into the Mexican market. Chile, on the other hand, puts very limited resources into promoting its grapes in Mexico.

White House: Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks
Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months – in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations – and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. This provisional target is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long. With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.

Underscoring President Obama’s commitment to American leadership on clean energy and combating climate change, the White House also announced today that a host of Cabinet secretaries and other top officials from across the Administration will travel to Copenhagen for the conference. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson are all scheduled to attend, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.

For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world. In addition to working with other countries to advance American interests, U.S. delegates will keynote a series of events highlighting actions by the Obama Administration to provide domestic and global leadership in the transition to a clean energy economy. Topics will range from energy efficiency investments and global commitments to renewables policy and clean energy jobs. The following keynote events and speakers are currently scheduled:

• Wednesday, December 9th: Taking Action at Home, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
• Thursday, December 10th: New Energy Future: the role of public lands in clean energy production and carbon capture, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
• Friday, December 11th: Clean Energy Jobs in a Global Marketplace, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke
• Monday, December 14th: Leading in Energy Efficiency and Renewables, Energy Secretary Steven Chu
• Tuesday, December 15th: Clean Energy Investments: creating opportunities for rural economies, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
• Thursday, December 17th: Backing Up International Agreement with Domestic Action, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley and Assistant to the President Carol Browner

These events will underline the historic progress the Obama Administration has made to address climate change and create a new energy future. In addition to passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives this summer, Administration officials will highlight an impressive resume of American action and accomplishments over the last 10 months, including:

DOMESTIC LEADERSHIP

• Recovery Act: The U.S. is investing more than $80 billion in clean energy through its Recovery Act – including the largest-ever investment in renewable energy, which will double our generation of clean renewable energy like wind and solar in three years.

• Efficiency Standard for Automobiles: President Obama announced the first ever joint fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks in May. The new standards are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program with a fuel economy gain averaging more than 5 percent per year and a reduction of approximately 900 million metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions.

• Advancing Comprehensive Energy Legislation: Passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation is a top priority for the Administration and significant progress has been made. In June, The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act that will promote clean energy investments and lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. The Senate continues to advance their efforts to pass comprehensive legislation and move the U.S. closer to a system of clean energy incentives that create new energy jobs, reduce our dependence on oil, and cut pollution.

• Appliance Efficiency Standards: The Obama Administration has forged more stringent energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential appliances, including microwaves, kitchen ranges, dishwashers, lightbulbs and other common appliances. This common sense approach makes improved efficiency a manufacturing requirement for the everyday appliances used in practically every home and business, resulting in a significant reduction in energy use. Altogether, about two dozen new energy efficiency standards will be completed in the next few years.

• Offshore Energy Development: Within the Administration’s first 100 days, a new regulatory framework was established to facilitate the development of alternative energy projects in an economic and environmentally sound manner that allows us to tap into the vast energy potential of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that development of wind energy alone on the OCS may provide an additional 1,900 gigawatts of clean energy to the U.S.

• Emissions Inventory Rule: For the first time, the U.S. will catalogue greenhouse gas emissions from large emission sources – an important initial step toward measurable and transparent reductions.

INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP

• The Major Economies Forum (MEF): President Obama launched the MEF in March 2009, creating a new dialogue among developed and emerging economies to combat climate change and promote clean energy. At the July L’Aquila summit, MEF Leaders announced important new agreements to support the UN climate talks and launched a new Global Partnership to promote clean energy technologies.

• Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The President spearheaded an agreement at the Pittsburgh G20 summit for all G20 nations to phase out their fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term and to work with other countries to do the same. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations followed the G20 lead at their summit in Singapore, expanding the number of countries committing to these subsidies. According to the International Energy Agency, this measure alone could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent or more by 2050.

• Bilateral Energy and Climate Partnerships: The U.S. is accelerating its collaboration with China, India, Mexico, Canada and other key international partners to combat climate change, coordinate clean energy research and development, and support the international climate talks.

• Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas: President Obama proposed a partnership with our neighbors in the western hemisphere to advance energy security and combat climate change. An early product of this cooperation is Chile’s Renewable Energy Center, which receives technical support from the U.S. Department of Energy.

• Phasing Down HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons): The U.S. joined Canada and Mexico in proposing to phase-down HFC emissions, a very potent greenhouse gas, in developed and developing countries under the Montreal Protocol. This represents a down payment of about 10% of the emission reductions necessary to cut global greenhouse gas emissions to half their current levels by 2050.

Washington Times: Climate science hijacking

Washington Times: Climate science hijacking


Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Climate science hijacking

Anthony J. Sadar

Regardless of the ultimate impact of the exposed e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), numerous facts about the atmosphere surrounding climate change have always been apparent to the broad atmospheric-science community.

The raw CRU e-mails, however, indicate that the gatekeepers of climate knowledge have limited what the public has been allowed to know about climate change.

Three important facts that have been sidetracked by the venerated gatekeepers include:

c There has never been an established consensus among scientists that humans are causing long-term, global climate change.

c Climate models have always been rather crude, inaccurate tools for projecting the worldwide trends of an extremely complex climate system.

c Water, not carbon dioxide (CO2) or any other greenhouse gas, has always been the most significant climate regulator on Earth.

Regarding the "consensus," climate czar Carol Browner said she relies on those "2,500 scientists" from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support her claim that human carbon emissions are likely pushing climate change.

But not all of the 2,500 are actually climate scientists. The IPCC group consists of a mix of scientists, bureaucrats and governmental representatives, many of whom seem bent on a power-grab agenda.

The thousands of non-IPCC scientists specializing in atmospheric and climate-related work have never been quizzed as to their confidence in the hypothesis that humans are substantially responsible for changing the global climate.

In addition, the official charge to the IPCC members is "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation" [emphasis added]. Note the directive to be "open and transparent."

But, perhaps more important, the members are assigned the task of assessing "human-induced" climate change, which implies such inducing already exists. In essence, members seemingly are expected to support the theme of human-induced climate change, not to investigate the existence of such change.

As for modeling, although terrific for research and understanding the dynamics of the atmosphere, climate models are rather crude, inaccurate tools for long-term climate predicting with any specificity. For instance, in the real world, complex elements such as clouds have a profound effect on regulating the Earth's surface temperature. Yet clouds are inadequately represented by the computer models designed to simulate them.

That brings us to water in general as a key climate regulator. As stated in the past, the global atmospheric temperature is "substantially controlled by water in all its forms, as invisible vapor in air, as liquid in oceans and clouds, and as solid ice crystals, snow cover and glaciers" (see, "In global warming we trust," The Washington Times' Commentary pages Feb. 23). But, government regulation of water based on the tactic that it's a dangerous pollutant is a more difficult sell than the CO2-is-bad-for-polar-bears ruse. Besides, the claim that "CO2 is causing global warming" is itself a rather shallow proposition.

Deep ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years show that global temperature increases lead global CO2 increases - that is, temperature goes up first followed by a rise in CO2. Surely such evidence should put the brakes on climate hysteria.

Despite good scientific reason to be skeptical of official pronouncements on climate change, the CRU e-mail revelation certainly sheds more light on climate-science machinations. But, let's face it, the train hauling cargo boldly labeled "Humans are Causing Long-term Climate Change" has long-ago departed the station - and now it is heading full-throttle to the next stop in Copenhagen.

Though it's too late to flag the train before it pulls into the depot, at least the public is probably beginning to realize the train's boldly labeled containers may in fact be empty.

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and co-author of "Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry" (CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, 2000).

FOX News: Where is Obama the leader?

FOX News: Where is Obama the leader?


It is becoming crystal clear that President Obama is not the leader we thought he was. This revelation is as surprising as it is disappointing. He certainly looks like a leader; heaven knows he talks like a leader, but it turns out that he lacks a crucial qualification that all real leaders possess.

Great leaders put themselves on the line; Obama puts Congress on the line.

This penchant made headlines again last week. The White House wants to establish a commission to cut the federal budget deficit. According to The Wall Street Journal, budget director Peter Orszag met with Senate Budget Committee head Kent Conrad about setting up a bipartisan committee that will examine ways to reduce spending.

Here’s a shocker for the White House: that’s your job. You are in charge of the budget. You -- the Obama administration -- made the spending choices that led to a $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009. Going forward, your decision to ramp up government outlays guarantees unsustainable red ink far into the future. Yes, you stepped into a deteriorating situation, as you have reminded the American people on countless occasions; like all inheritances, however, the deficit now belongs to you.

It is not up to Congress to find a way out of our fiscal sand trap -- that is the responsibility of the White House. It is the president, ultimately, who is responsible for finding ways to cut the out-of-control entitlements programs that will otherwise destabilize this country. He then has to ram the tough choices through Congress, which his party dominates, even if it makes some people angry.

This, Obama will not want to do. His desire to shunt responsibility to others is not a one-off. Obama displayed his distaste for taking responsibility right out of the box when he handed health care overhaul to Congress, though it was his signature issue. Given that the country has been wracked with controversy over Congress’ proposals to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on health insurance for uncovered Americans and that the bills issuing from our dysfunctional legislature are a bloated embarrassment, would it not have been better for a newly elected and then-popular president to have worked his magic on this issue? If he had personally guided the construction of a health care bill would the country have been subjected to the bitter wrangling we now witness? Could a quicker resolution of the issue have allowed Obama to focus on jobs -- the number one priority of Americans today?

I should note that Congress is not always the fall-guy for the president. Sometimes Obama hands the baton to others. For example, trying terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York civil court was apparently the brainstorm of Attorney General Eric Holder. As the outrage over this decision built, Holder claimed total responsibility, saying that the president was informed of the plan after the fact. Does anyone believe that?

By the way, the president’s reluctance to put himself on the line predates his presidency. We recall his 130 votes of “present” on many controversial issues while serving as an Illinois state senator. During the campaign we were fed the tale that such ambiguity is a hallmark of that body. Hilary Clinton saw through that absurdity and during the campaign derided him as a “talker” rather than a “doer.” How right she was.

Obama’s desire to avoid accountability is understandable, if not laudable. Every time a politician takes a stand, he alienates some voters. The Obama White House has made a fine art of political assessment. The upcoming decision on Afghanistan is a case in point. After weeks of postponement and soul-searching, Obama has apparently decided to send up to 30,000 additional Marines -- in phases -- initially targeting Afghanistan’s southern sector. This is a far cry from the immediate deployment of 40,000 troops requested by General Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s hand-picked adviser. We can only hope that this decision will get the job done. The Goldilocks strategy -- trying to appease those who see Obama as weak on fighting terrorists while comforting those who oppose our presence in Afghanistan -- smacks of political calculation. At least Obama personally made the decision. On the other hand, the process was so clumsy that maybe we’re better off dealing with designated hitters.

According to most analysts, the United States faces an extended period of high unemployment and slow growth. This will be a trying period for our impatient country. Americans like quick fixes; our attention span is about the length of a Tweet. A drawn-out recovery that does not supply a steady stream of new jobs could spell trouble, and bring back the social turbulence of other unhappy and struggling times.

President Obama is in the hot seat; he needs to learn how to lead, and should send the political calculators back to Chicago.