> My friend also points out, as Jim does, that on the committees, native
> pollinator people outnumber honeybee people. To me, that means that
we
> beekeepers aren't doing our job as well as the native pollinator folk
are
> doing theirs. Jim, any suggestions as to how we can get beekeepers
better
> represented?
Let us for a moment, take a "paranoid" stance.
Now, let's look at the bills one can find with "Pollinator" in the title
and note their dates of introduction:
1) Pollinator Protection Act [House HR1709] 03/27/07
2) Pollinator Habitat Protection Act of 2007 [Senate S1496] 05/24/07
3) Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 [Senate S1694] 06/26/07
4) Pollinator Habitat Protection Act of 2007 [House HR2913] 06/28/07
There are two bills here, each with a "House" and "Senate" version.
That makes two in each body, a total of four.
OK, so at first, we had the (Honey Bee & CCD Focused) HR1709, but note
well that it included R&D funding for native bee research in its
language.
In fact, it would be impossible to fund ONLY Honey Bee research, as the
Bee Labs are all run out of the same accounts, by the same manager, and
he is not gonna let the Logan UT lab (where native bees are studied)
starve when the other labs get cash, now is he?
And then we have S1496, a purely "native pollinator habitat" bill.
It added "native pollinators" to a bunch of conservation set-aside
bills, so that landholders, farmers, and the federal government itself
(who owns lots of the prime native bee habitat in the USA) could get
the same advantage from a set-aside for native pollinators that they
could from a set-aside for wolves or bighorn sheep.
So far, so good, right?
But now let's look at the "companion bills". (Civics 101: Everything
has to be passed by BOTH houses, House and Senate, or you have a no-go).
In the case of HR2913, you find no changes at all from S1496 both
"Pollinator Habitat Protection Acts" are the same, with no funny
business. The bills match, so there is nothing to "work out in
committee, and no need for House/Senate negotiation.
But look at S1694! Same title (ok, they added the year), so one
would think it was a companion bill to HR1709, the one about CCD.
But surprise! It has all sorts of new language! About... all
together now, "native pollinators", of course.
How'd that happen? Why didn't they add whatever they wanted to
add to the "Pollinator HABITAT Protection Act", still "in committee"
in both houses of congress:
HR1709 - Referred to House Committee on Agriculture.
HR2913 - Referred to House Committee on Agriculture.
S1694 - Referred to (Senate) Committee on Ag, Nutrition, and Forestry.
S1496 - Referred to (Senate) Committee on Ag, Nutrition, and Forestry.
But hold on a second here - why were the hearings held by the
Senate's "Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Oceans" if the bill itself was properly the business of the
Senate AGRICULTURE Committee, to who the bill was referred?.
And why did it have a funny name like "The Birds and the Bees"?
I mean, it is cute, but do we want to be "cute" when we go hat
in hand to beg for dollars to try and stop what is starting
to look like it might be "Beekeeping's Dust Bowl"?
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/
("The Birds and the Bees: How Pollinators Help Maintain
Healthy Ecosystems") The answer is that "we" did not pick the title.
Beekeeping and CCD was the very small tail on the very large dog in
those hearings, except when it was felt that they would make
good stalking horses for the native pollinator agenda.
Why and how did THAT happen?
Well, it should be obvious! The AGRICULTURE committee would have said
"we don't DO
'environment' we do farming and such." So, the game was rigged from the
moment the
native pollinator types "so graciously invited" the beekeepers to speak
about CCD
to the Senate.
The beekeepers could have said, SHOULD have said. "Gee thanks, we will
support
your efforts, but we have a purely Agriculture issue here, and we need
to present
our plea to the AGRICULTURE Committee, not the NATURAL RESOURCES
Committee."
But they didn't.
And now that the hearings are over, and CCD has been given a voice
before the
Senate, why should the Senate Agriculture Committee hold hearings on
S1694
When they've already been held before another committee?
So, the "companion bill" to HR1709 was thereby usurped, utilizing the
same
title, but having add-ons not found in the HR1709. This really delays
stuff,
as the two bills MUST match (remember Civics 101?) if they are to be
more
than a waste of dead trees.
So, all the hype and press over CCD resulted in hearings in the Senate
held
by the WRONG COMMITTEE, where DIFFERENT GOALS were the primary focus of
a bill DELIBERATELY GIVEN THE SAME NAME.
And, in the process, no way to ask for some shuffling around of USDA
slush funds to get us over the short-term hump because it was the
WRONG COMMITTEE. ("Wrong for our needs, but "right" for the needs
of the protectors and promoters of native pollinators. You remember
those guys, right? What's their body count by now? Any MORE
confirmed extinctions as a direct result of their smug insistence that
they have some insects that are better than Honey Bees somehow?)
One thing that I wonder about - How can the Natural Resources Committee
hold "oversight" hearings on a bill that is promptly referred to the
Agriculture Committee? Doesn't the Senate have committees for a reason?
(Or was a fraud perpetrated upon the Senate by presuming to hold
oversight
hearings on an issue over which the Natural Resources Committee has no
jurisdiction?) I dunno - turn on the TV, and confirm that no one seems
to play by the rules any more, even when Congress issues freakin'
subpoenas.
So, every one will point to the hearings on the 28th as "about CCD",
even
though it was actually set up the way it was and WHERE it was soley to
address "native pollinator" needs that could have been added to THEIR
OWN
DARN BILL. (The "Habitat" bill)
While I may certainly be accused of being "unfair" in my analysis, the
lobbying
continues, and it appears to continue to be single-minded and
self-serving, now
that the press hype over CCD has been used as a bullet-point to justify
UNRELATED
things like habitat protection for native pollinators. (I love mailing
lists, as
people put their playbooks on them for all to see:
http://lists.sonic.net/pipermail/pollinator/2007-July/000778.html )
Yep, their goal now is to back-fit the same language into HR1709.
And they will keep going and going, just like the Energizer Bunny,
as long as it takes, and short-fuse CCD funding be damned.
With "friends" like these...
We never even got a CHANCE to go before the Senate Ag Committee and ask
for some short-term, small-time bucks.
Now, go ahead and just try to call me paranoid. Just try.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
