FAA fighting comes down to peanuts

For all the millions of dollars that a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) bill would authorize, one of the biggest fights it could generate may be over peanuts.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who hails from a state that is at least a two-hour flight from prime peanut country, was considering introducing an amendment to the broader FAA reauthorization bill that would ban peanuts on airplanes.

{mosads}After months of delay, the bill is finally set to move this week on the Senate floor.

Some people have life-threatening allergies to peanuts. Several airlines have voluntarily replaced their Planters with pretzels, but supporters say a total ban is the safest course because it would prevent, for example, allergic toddlers from picking up a stray peanut, unbeknownst to their parents.

An aide said that Lautenberg had not yet decided to introduce the amendment. But it has shown up on a list of possible changes the New Jersey Democrat may propose to the FAA bill that was circulating among aviation lobbyists Monday.

The FAA reauthorization bill is scheduled to be debated this week after being stalled for months on an unrelated funding dispute over how to pay for a major upgrade to the nation’s air traffic control system.

Reports of safety issues at Southwest and the sight of thousands of passengers being stranded after American Airlines canceled flights to comply with FAA rules jump-started the bill last week.

Suddenly drawn into the fight, lobbyists for peanut producers were marshaling their forces Monday in preparation. With the help of the then-Republican majority, peanut growers fought off a regulatory effort by the FAA in the 1990s to get peanuts off planes.

“We would actively be opposed to it,” one lobbyist said. “We’ve been down this road before.”

In addition to providing a venue to sell their products, peanut farmers look at peanuts on flights as an invaluable marketing opportunity, the lobbyist said.

Senators from the Southeast, which is prime peanut-growing territory, would likely try to block the amendment.

Although a proposed peanut ban may present a bump in the road for the FAA bill, congressional aides expect enough bipartisan support for the bill to pass in the Senate and show flyers the chamber is working to improve the nation’s aviation system

Coupled with a Farm Bill that is likewise moving again after a long delay, the FAA bill could give congressional Democrats in particular a shield to defend against “do-nothing” attacks.

“There is a general consensus that we need to do a FAA bill that addresses safety and oversight at the FAA,” said Steven Broderick, a spokesman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), one of the leading authors of the FAA bill.

Last week, Senate Finance and Commerce committee leaders announced a resolution to a months-long dispute over how an expensive upgrade to the nation’s air traffic control system should be paid for.

Rockefeller, the chairman of the Commerce Aviation subcommittee, had sought to require general aviation to shoulder more of the burden under a new $25 user fee on those flights.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), meanwhile, favored raising jet fuel taxes on both the airlines and general aviation.

The agreement reached last week takes the user fees off the table, a win for general aviation lobbyists. But the fuel tax for general aviation flights would increase from 21.8 cents a gallon to 36 cents a gallon. That will provide around $240 million more to switch from ground-based radars to a traffic control system that relies on global positioning systems.

Commercial airlines, whose earnings have plummeted as gasoline prices have soared, weren’t able to shift as much of the costs for the new upgrade as they had hoped, but their tax burden is not changed by the Senate bill — a partial win, at least.

Senators were making last-minute changes to the bill Monday, including to its “passenger bill of rights” section that would require airlines to develop a plan to ensure flyers aren’t trapped on tarmacs without enough food or water and working bathrooms.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), meanwhile, was reported to be considering amendments that would make it harder for the airlines to have their planes serviced overseas, an effort backed by union groups.

Labor was also expected to push for a change that would bring FedEx under the same labor organizing rules that rival UPS is now subjected to. UPS said it supports the change but is not actively lobbying for it. FedEx remains opposed to the language.

Other issues that could come up relate to airline pensions. Lawmakers were also expecting a debate over who is most responsible for the sharp increase in jet fuel prices that have eaten away at earnings at a number of airlines.

Meanwhile, House and Senate negotiators continued to close in on a possible agreement on the Farm Bill.

“I would call it a tentative agreement at the moment. We are very close,” said an aide for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Harkin and others, like House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), reached a deal Friday.

Locking out their staff for close to an hour, lawmakers reached agreement on a basic framework for the bill. Since then, aides have toiled to fill in its details.

A number of new programs appear to have made the final cut, such as $1 billion for a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program favored by Harkin and $400 million in tax credits for development of cellulosic ethanol.

Several initiatives would be cut, however. For example, a permanent disaster insurance program that was supported by Baucus was shaved by  $200 million from original proposals. The total amount of direct payments to farmers would also be cut, by about $400 million.

“You had to make some cuts to make this whole thing work. At the end of the day, this is a compromise,” said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union.  

Buis’s group has lobbied for the disaster insurance program but against direct payments because they are not tied to commodity markets and profits.

“It is not the best way to make the safety net, because they are based on what you did in the past,” Buis said. “It is too hard to justify when prices are high, which they are today.”

Another major sticking point between negotiators is the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) cap for farmers to take in agricultural subsidies. The AGI was set high in the House version of the bill at $1 million. The Senate decided on $900,000. The Bush administration, however, has said the AGI cap should be at $200,000, threatening to veto the bill over the issue.

Conference members have not reached a new number for the AGI cap as of yet.

“It defies logic that billions of dollars will fatten the bank accounts of profitable plantation-scale farms, especially under the conditions we are facing right now,” said Sandra Schubert, director of government relations for the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

EWG is part of a coalition of humanitarian relief groups, budget watchdogs and environmentalists that have campaigned against the AGI cap and other farm subsidies.

Several interest groups have supported those measures, however, arguing that help is needed now more than ever for their particular industry.

Luther Markwart, chairman of the American Sugar Alliance, has pushed aggressively for such provisions.

“Our guys are really fighting to survive,” said Markwart. “Energy costs are just killing them and they are looking for everything you can get.”

Markwart, whose trade group represents both sugar producers and processors, said there were several key improvements in the bill for his industry, such as a sugar loan rate increase as well as a sugar-to-ethanol program.

Farm Bill conferees sit down Tuesday for another meeting. But despite the progress, aides predict lawmakers may need another extension to finish the job. The bill is set to expire by the end of this week.

Overall, Farm Bill conferees are $10 billion over the baseline set by its 2002 predecessor.