[Senate Hearing 111-1028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1028
OVERSIGHT HEARING TO EXAMINE
THE IMPACT OF EPA REGULATION ON AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-276 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MAX BAUCUS, Montana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Robert Holifield, Majority Staff Director
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Martha Scott Poindexter, Minority Staff Director
Anne C. Hazlett, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Oversight Hearing to Examine the Impact of EPA Regulation on
Agriculture.................................................... 1
----------
Wednesday, September 23, 2010
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Arkansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry....................................................... 1
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia.... 5
Panel I
Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.............................. 8
Panel II
Hillman, Rich, Vice President, Arkansas Farm Bureau, Carlisle,
Arkansas....................................................... 31
Vroom, Jay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Croplife
America, Washington, DC........................................ 32
White, Jere, Executive Director, Kansas Corn Growers Association,
Barnett, Kansas................................................ 34
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Grassley, Hon. Chuck......................................... 46
Hillman, Rich................................................ 47
Jackson, Hon. Lisa P......................................... 54
Vroom, Jay................................................... 66
White, Jere.................................................. 75
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Holiday Shores Subpoena...................................... 82
Question and Answer:
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L.:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 92
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 94
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 99
Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 104
Johanns, Hon. Mike:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 102
McConnell, Hon. Mitch:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 100
Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 95
Roberts, Hon. Pat:
Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson.................... 102
Written questions to Jere White.............................. 148
Jackson, Hon. Lisa P.:
Written response to questions from Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln... 108
Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss...... 114
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 127
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles E. Grassley.. 141
Written response to questions from Hon. Mike Johanns......... 137
Written response to questions from Hon. Mitch McConnell...... 130
Written response to questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson... 120
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 135
White, Jere:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 149
OVERSIGHT HEARING TO EXAMINE
THE IMPACT OF EPA REGULATION ON AGRICULTURE
----------
Thursday, September 23, 2010
United States Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., in
Room SR328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Blanche
Lincoln, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present or submitting a statement: Senators Lincoln,
Conrad, Stabenow, Nelson, Klobuchar, Chambliss, Roberts,
Johanns, and Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
Chairman Lincoln. Good afternoon. The Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry will now
come to order.
I am pleased to hold this hearing, examining the impact of
the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of farmers and
ranchers.
As always I am delighted to be joined by my good friend and
ranking member Senator Chambliss who I know had other things he
has been at and may have to leave for as well but I am so proud
that he is here today and grateful for his sharing of my
passion and commitment for farmers, ranchers and certainly
rural America. He serves us all well. I am glad he is here.
Several excellent witnesses will provide testimony today,
and I would like to first extend a special thanks to fellow
Arkansan, Mr. Rich Hillman. To be here with us today Rich is
missing the first day of a two-day meeting of the Board of
Directors of the Arkansas Farm Bureau.
So, Rich, I appreciate you for being here.
We will also hear from Mr. Jay Vroom, who is the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Croplife America; and, of
course, Mr. Jere White, who is Executive Director of the Kansas
Corn Growers Association.
Finally, a very special thanks to you, Administrator Lisa
Jackson, from the Environmental Protection Agency for coming
before us and appearing before the Committee today.
Administrator Jackson, I know you and your team have been
extremely busy in these last several months as we mentioned
back here, responding to this spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We
appreciate that, and we appreciate you making time to be with
us today.
As a farmer's daughter I learned first-hand from farmers
and ranchers and foresters who are the best stewards of our
land. I have never known a better conservationist than my dad
who had a tremendous respect for the land and a great love for
it as well.
It provided for us with the safest, most abundant, and most
affordable supply of food and fiber in the world, and they have
done it for generations.
This could not happen without the careful stewardship of
their land. In fact, much of the conservation gains that have
been made over the past half century have been achieved through
voluntary, incentive-based cost sharing programs, many of which
were developed on a bipartisan basis by members of this
Committee both past and present. Truly remarkable improvements
have been made in reduced soil erosion, improved water and air
quality, and wildlife habitat restoration.
To my point I would suggest that any of you all that might
think about it pick up a copy of the Worst Hard Times. It is a
story about the dust bowl days to really get a sense of where
we have been and where we are today thanks to a collaborative
effort between farmers, ranchers, and those who really
understand production agriculture in Congress.
As one who has been a part of this progress, it has been my
experience and it is certainly my judgment that the carrot has
time and time again proved mightier than the stick when it
comes to advancing important conservation and environmental
objectives on farms, ranches, and forest land.
Unfortunately farmers and ranchers in rural Arkansas and
all over on our Nation are increasingly frustrated and
bewildered by vague, overreaching and unnecessarily burdensome
EPA regulations. Farmers face so many unknowns, so many that
many of us just take for granted. The last thing they need is
regulatory uncertainty.
Producers are subject to the whims of the commodity markets
and the weather, just to name a few. A sudden shift in price or
a wet summer can devastate a farmer and drive him out of
business.
In the face of these stark realities, our farmers, ranchers
and foresters need clear, straightforward, and predictable
rules to live by that are not burdensome, duplicative, costly,
unnecessary or, in some cases, just plain bizarre.
Farmers and ranchers do not have an army of environmental
engineers, lawyers, and regulatory compliance specialist on
their speed dial.
I do not know but I spent a great deal of time in a pickup
truck with my dad who had a small binder up above the visor on
his car or his truck, and that is how he kept up. He did not
have a computer. Many farmers still do not have computers on
board with them in those trucks and cars to be able to figure
out what it is that is being asked of them and try to decipher
it on their own without a tremendous number of engineers or
lawyers or others.
Compliance obligations that may seem simple to a career
bureaucrat in Washington, DC, are often complex, they are
ambiguous, and in the end leave farmers and ranchers feeling
tremendously uncertain and exposed to steep fines they simply
cannot afford in this economic environment.
I urge everyone to give thought to the following. Right now
at a time when every American feels anxious about his or her
own economic future and the economic future of the country, our
farmers, ranchers, and foresters are facing at least a dozen, a
dozen new regulatory requirements, each of which will add to
their cost making it harder for them to compete in a world that
is marked by stiff and usually unfair competition.
And most, if not all, of these regulations rely on dubious
rationales, and as a consequence, will be of questionable
benefit to the overall goal of conservation and environmental
protection.
There is no question that our farmers and ranchers want to
do what is best for the environment. They ask that you do not
lower your expectations of them but simply give them goals that
they can reach and still continue to produce a safe and
affordable and abundant supply of food and fiber.
They ask that you work together with agriculture community
to set these common sense goals instead of using the command
and control top down approach that this Administration has
relied on so far.
In a moment I will talk about two issues that are prime
examples of this Administration's overreaching approach to
regulation. But I would be remiss if I did not mention several
other issues that really do concern me.
EPA's recent proposed spray drift guidance, as I have
indicated in a letter to the Administrator, was vague,
unenforceable, and would have left producers uncertain about
whether they were complying within the law when they sprayed.
I was initially informed that EPA decided to reconsider the
proposed spray drift guidance. Though more recently I have now
heard that EPA plans to stick with its initial proposal. This
troubles me because, as I stated before, the proposed standard
is completely unworkable.
Now as chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, I do not know what to expect or to
understand or to encourage growers across this Nation as to
what they can expect. You can imagine the concern and the
confusion among our farmers and ranchers and foresters in this
country not knowing what it is they can anticipate.
I am also concerned about EPA's recent practice of settling
Clean Water Act lawsuits while only allowing environmental
groups a seat at the table. I believe, as I always have, in
whatever issue we are dealing with all stakeholders should have
a seat at the table when so much is on the line.
Also the Administrator's goal of expanding the use of
renewable energy is being undermined by EPA's proposed boiler
MACT which would inhibit the use of biomass by subjecting new
facilities to needlessly expensive emission controls. This
regulation would also impose new costs on the Nation's paper
industry which currently relies on biomass for two thirds of
its energy.
Then there is EPA's proposed ambient air quality standards
for particulate matter which could lead to stringent
regulations of dust on farms. Folks, dust is a fact of life in
rural and agricultural areas of the United States. Trucks,
combines, livestock, they all kick up dust during the course of
normal farming operations. EPA must use common sense when
setting these types of standards.
Finally, I flat out disagree with EPA's regulation of
greenhouse gases. Because the legal foundation for the
tailoring is shaky at best probably, I fear that federal courts
will order EPA to regulate small sources of greenhouse gases.
This could mean unnecessary regulation for thousands of farms
all around the country.
We cannot allow this to happen, and as I have said time and
again, it should be Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, who
should be writing the laws to regulate greenhouse gases.
Now, just to talk about two issues in greater detail, the
first involves EPA's development of Clean Water Act permit
requirements for pesticide applications.
What is most frustrating to me about this development is
that the pesticide applications will unnecessarily regulate
twice, once under FIFRA and again under the Clean Water Act.
I firmly believe that as long as a FIFRA registered product
is applied in accordance with its label and any other
conditions, then we should not be requiring unnecessary,
duplicative regulatory burdens.
The Clean Water Act requirements for pesticide applications
have also created incredible uncertainty and concern for
producers, especially rice producers in our State of Arkansas.
Growers are suddenly forced to make a choice between either
potentially seeking an expensive permit that requires onerous
record keeping and other obligations and yet does nothing for
the environment that FIFRA does not already do for spraying
without a permit and be potentially subject to Clean Water Act
citizen suits and enormous civil penalties. It is simply a
choice that our farmers and ranchers and foresters should not
have to make.
For these reasons, Ranking Member Chambliss and I
introduced S. 3735, a bill that would clarify that a Clean
Water Act permit is not required if a pesticide is applied in
accordance with FIFRA. It is my hope that we could find a way
to pass this legislation as soon as possible.
Second issue, one unique to my home State of Arkansas, and
I appreciate the Committee bearing with me, is EPA's rush to
establish a total maximum daily load for the Illinois River
before the State of Oklahoma revisits its phosphorous standards
for the river. Common sense would seem to suggest that Oklahoma
should revisit its phosphorus standards before EPA takes
action.
I am also concerned by multiple reports from poultry
farmers in the northwest part of our State indicating a lack of
clarity regarding their obligation under the Clean Water Act. I
cannot emphasize enough that poultry farmers are not power
plants or large manufacturing facilities. They do not have
lawyers and engineers on staff. They do not sit around sipping
coffee, parsing and debating the finer points of the Clean
Water Act or the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the meaning of
the term ``waters of the US''. They need guidance and a clear
set of expectations, and it is EPA's job to provide it.
As we work to create jobs and put our economy back on
track, I know, I hope and believe that with all of our
objectives here working together we must give folks in rural
America the certainty they need to be successful. Overreaching,
burdensome regulations from the EPA create huge uncertainties
for our farmers and ranchers and put our Nation's food supply
at risk.
I hope that we can use today's hearing to discuss how we
can create a more collaborative relationship between the EPA
and American agriculture.
I again want to thank you all for being here. I appreciate
Administrator Jackson for being here and look forward to being
able to work to find some kind of common ground here that makes
sense to people in rural America and those that do produce for
us the safest, most abundant, and affordable supply of food and
fiber in the world.
So I will now turn to our Ranking Member, Senator
Chambliss, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF GEORGIA
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
let me just say at the outset that after what your Razorbacks
did to my Bull Dogs last Saturday----
Chairman Lincoln. I was not going to mention that. You
brought that up.
Senator Chambliss. I have every reason to be upset with
everybody in Arkansas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chambliss. Since we do not play you all for two
more years, it is going to take me two years to get over it.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Lincoln. We went pretty easy on you.
Senator Chambliss. If you did not care who won, it was an
exciting football game.
Thanks for your comments and likewise you are a great
partner here and with all the complex and difficult issues that
face American agriculture, we have had a great working
relationship and we are continuing down the road on this very
sensitive issue, and for that I thank you for holding this
hearing on this important and timely topic.
Administrator Jackson, I thank you for coming before the
Committee today. I realize that your time obviously is very
valuable.
I hope that I, along with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle and from every region of the country, can impress
upon you just how serious our concerns are with the
Environmental Protection Agency. Really all of rural America is
concerned.
As we open this discussion, let me say from the outset that
I am not here to complain that agriculture is being unfairly or
is being picked on or unfairly targeted by this Administration.
However, I do think it is fair to say that we are here to talk
about an approach to government regulation and several specific
regulations that will have a pivotal impact on the future of
the agricultural sector in America.
A few weeks ago, Secretary Vilsack unveiled two USDA
reports that show that the U.S. agriculture sector is improving
and exports are growing. After declining more than 20 percent
in 2009, farm sector earnings have experienced a rapid rebound
in 2010 and are forecasted to rise even higher by the end of
this year.
The secretary also announced that agricultural exports are
projected to reach $107.5 billion with an $11 billion increase
over this year. These figures make 2010 the second highest year
on record. That is great news for agriculture. I wish it were
true for the rest of our economy.
But as we think about this news, the question we then ask
is what impact are EPA's regulatory plans going to have on
future opportunities for growth. Specifically, will the
regulations help or hinder these opportunities and the jobs,
investment, and income that come with them.
Given the regulatory issues before us, particularly the one
cited by the Chairman, I believe along with many of my
colleagues around this table that the agency's plans will
hinder growth in agriculture in rural America.
By my count there are more than 20 different efforts
underway at EPA that affect agriculture and the farmers,
ranchers, foresters, agribusinesses and rural communities of
this country.
Let me just list a few of them for you. Clean Water Act
permits for pesticide applications. Next April EPA will impose
a completely unnecessary paperwork burden on pesticide users by
requiring a national pollutant discharge elimination system
permit for pesticide applications. This requirement will add
zero protection for the environment.
Under this framework, more than 5.6 million pesticide
applications will need to be permitted because the agency
refused to defend its well considered 30-year-old policy in
this area.
Next, atrazine. Last year EPA decided to re-review
atrazine. This was shocking since there was no scientific
reason for it, especially since EPA had finished a
comprehensive review of atrazine in 2006 and is scheduled to
begin the re-registration process in 2013. EPA's own Scientific
Advisory Panel has questioned the agency's motive for a second
review.
Next, numeric nutrient criteria. EPA's plan to set criteria
for Florida's streams, rivers, and lakes is astonishingly
expensive. In fact, the estimated initial cost just for
agriculture is anywhere from $855 million to more than $3
billion. This effort has been highly criticized for lack of
correlation between the proposed criteria and the desired
condition of these waters.
But this is not just about Florida. This precedent set in
Florida will affect the entire country. EPA has one chance to
get it right.
Next, CAFOs. EPA will begin to expand the Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation program next summer to require permits
for all small and medium operations and to develop more
aggressive nutrient management plans for all sizes of farms.
This expansion is due to a settlement agreement with an
environmental litigant which is a very poor way to set policy
and is based upon a questionable interpretation of the law.
Next, greenhouse gas regulations. The EPA suite of
regulations would drive up costs for all energy users, bring
large and small agribusinesses into a permitting program, and
within a few years require large farms to obtain air permits.
In addition, EPA's treatment of biomass emissions in its
tailoring rule contradicts long-standing US policy. The
uncertainty created by this rule is sidelining investment in
biomass power something this Administration has made a priority
in its green energy agenda--and threatening the viability of
existing biomass energy production facilities.
Next, risk assessment for dioxin. Exposure to dioxin has
declined by 90 percent over the past two decades. This is a
victory. Unbelievably at the very same time, however, EPA is
contemplating setting a standard lower than every other
developed nation. This would mean that no food, which is the
primary source of dioxin exposure, would be safe. This defies
rational science and all common sense.
Why does all of this matter? Because we need American
agriculture not just to feed Americans but to feed the world.
The Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, recently projected
the world population will rise from 6.8 billion today to 9.1
billion people by 2050.
In short, the world will need to produce 70 percent more
food to feed an additional 2.3 billion people. Nearly all of
the population growth will occur in developing countries. At
the same time, food producing nations like the United States
will need to take a leadership role in combating poverty and
hunger using scarce natural resources more efficiently and
adapting to a changing climate.
While the FAO is cautiously optimistic about the world's
potential to feed itself by 2050, I seriously question whether
anyone has made the connection between the central role that
America must play to solve this challenge and the regulations
that EPA has put forth for agriculture, the very industry that
will be responsible for the solution.
No one disputes the need or desire for clean air and water,
bountiful habitat, and healthy landscapes. We all believe in
that. But at some point, which I believe we are getting
dangerously close to, regulatory burdens on farmers and
ranchers will hinder rather than help them become better
stewards of the land and more bountiful producers of food,
fiber, and fuel.
Administrator Jackson, you as the leader of EPA, are the
one to make this connection along with Secretary Vilsack. It is
you that must take this to your colleagues in the
Administration and ask the hard questions about this approach
to agriculture. I hope this hearing helps motivate you to do
exactly that.
In a spirit of cooperation, let me close with this final
thought. These issues are not going away. They must be
addressed in a reasonable manner. We have a choice. The
agriculture community can fight regulation by regulation or we,
Congress, the Administration, and the agricultural sector can
work together on a sensible approach that harnesses the
innovation, productive capability, and natural resource base of
America to improve the future of our country and our neighbors
around the world. It is my hope that this hearing will open the
door to do just that.
Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this timely
hearing, and I look forward to the Administrator's testimony.
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you. I appreciate your closing
comments, and in the good spirit of what we did on nutrition is
a great opportunity in this Committee to work in a bipartisan
way and with the Administration and the industry to really find
those kind of common sense solutions to the problems that we
might face. So I thank the Senator for reminding us where we
have come from and where we have to go.
We have two panels that we are anxious to hear from today.
In the interest of time, any Senator I would hope that you all
would, if you want to just submit your opening statements for
the record, I know people are wanting to get out of town too so
we will move on.
We would like to welcome EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
Before becoming EPS's Administrator, Ms. Jackson served as
Chief of Staff to New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and
commissioner of the State's Department of Environmental
Protection.
Prior to joining DEP, she worked for 16 years as an
employee of the U.S. EPA. She has been working tirelessly in
the Gulf and I know that is certainly something of great
importance to her as I believe you were born or raised in New
Orleans so it is hometown territory for you and I know it is
work that you hated to have to do but enjoyed being there to be
able to see all the things that you could accomplish in
reviving the Gulf.
Administrator Jackson, we look forward to your remarks.
Your written testimony will be submitted for the record and I
ask that you keep your remarks hopefully to as close to five
minutes as you can. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lincoln, Ranking Member Chambliss, members of
the Committee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify.
I am pleased to talk with you about EPA's mission to
protect human health and the environment and the interaction
with the agriculture community. Farmers and ranchers are an
essential part of the American economy. They provide us with
food, fiber, and fuel. The agriculture community should be
credited with taking significant steps to protect the
environment while finding innovative ways to feed millions of
people.
I recognize that there are concerns in the agriculture
community about EPA's activities. Two weeks ago I was in
Americus, Georgia, where I heard directly from local farmers
about the challenges they and their families face and how they
are attempting to deal with environmental issues.
The slim margins on which farmers operate, the inability to
pass along the cost of environmental improvements, and their
vulnerability in a difficult economy was obvious and a critical
considerations in working with agriculture.
At the same time that we are hearing concerns from farmers,
they are also expressing their willingness to engage with us on
environmental challenges. American farmers have made
substantial contributions to protecting the environment from
practices that reduce risk from pesticide use in fruit orchards
and vegetable fields to conservation efforts to protect water
quality in regions such as the Chesapeake Bay. While much has
been accomplished, too much remains to be done to protect our
air and water as the population and development increases.
As EPA Administrator I made a commitment to protect the air
we breathe, the water we drink and use to irrigate our land and
to protect the land that is our heritage and our children's
inheritance.
I pledged to uphold the law, use the best available
science, and be transparent in our decision-making at EPA. A
recent example of EPA's commitment to those principles came
during the RFS2 rule making. Congress directed EPA to conduct a
life cycle analysis for biofuels. EPA's initial proposal in the
spring of 2009 was based on science as we knew it at that time.
We opened our analysis to comments from the public and
industry as well as an independent science review, and I sent
senior staff to Iowa so that they could meet with farmers and
researchers.
Based on the vast amount of new information received and
analyzed, we came to a substantially different conclusion than
our initial proposal. Throughout that process we demonstrated
our willingness to engage with the public to carry out our
responsibilities, to make complex decisions under the law, and
to ensure that we follow the current science.
Taking the time to solicit ideas directly from farmers and
listening to their concerns is major priority for me. I have
co-hosted a series of meetings with Secretary Vilsack at which
we met with producers and their representatives from the
commodity, livestock, and specialty crops sectors.
These meetings were candid and wide-ranging conversations
with farmers and ranchers where I heard their concerns
firsthand. I also heard about the remarkable things they and
their neighbors are doing across the country in large and small
operations to protect our land, water, and air.
As a product of what we learned in those meetings, I have
asked my staff to initiate two important discussions with
agricultural stakeholders.
First, I am asking our Office of Air and Radiation to carry
out an extensive effort to solicit information about the issues
associated with PM10, the dust issue, and its implication for
rural communities and agriculture before we make any proposal
on this issue.
Second, I am asking our Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance to convene a discussion with agricultural
and other stakeholders to foster better understanding and
communication around EPA's enforcement operations and to
discuss options for increasing the ability of agriculture to
protect the environment. By providing these opportunities, I
hope to demonstrate EPA's commitment to engaging directly with
the agriculture and rural communities.
EPA has also been making direct and substantial investment
in the farm communities' efforts to find and implement
environmentally sound practices.
During my time so far at EPA, the agency has provided
approximately $190 million in grants in direct support for
critical agricultural projects across the United States. Our
investment is as diverse as the range of issues that farmers
must grapple with.
For instance, we have provided grants to states for work to
protect Lake Champlain's watershed, to reduce insect resistance
for crops in the southwest United States, to help farmers adapt
variable rate technologies in Ohio.
In many of these efforts, EPA funds have been used along
with USDA funds such as EPA's seed grant in south Georgia which
helped leverage a substantial investment from USDA to assist
limited resource and disadvantaged farmers to implement best
management practices.
Admittedly EPA's financial resources are only one part of
the larger picture of support. While in many places they are a
catalyst and a complement to the much more significant
resources that USDA brings to communities, the immense private
investment by farmers and their communities are the major
driver.
If there is one message I want to send today, it is that I
recognize that the most effective course for protecting our
environment is an active partnership between EPA and USDA and
farmers and their communities.
We will continue to face complex and difficult issues in
carrying out the responsibilities that Congress has given us. I
am encouraged by my conversations with farmers that there is a
path forward on the issues ahead. Just as important, my
conversations with the agricultural community have reinforced
my belief and commitment that a healthy farm economy and a
health environment can and should go hand in hand.
Thank you. I am pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson can be found on page
54 in the appendix.]
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you so much, Administrator for your
testimony. Just a few questions.
In my opening statement I stated that it makes no sense for
pesticide application to be subject to both FIFRA and the Clean
Water Act. FIFRA takes into account environmental
considerations so additional Clean Water Act regulation is
certainly an unnecessary burden not only to applicators but
also to state regulatory authorities. And States like Arkansas
are underfunded and struggle to keep up with existing laws and
regulations and do not need to spend their time enforcing
regulations that do not improve the environment.
Your agency is not scheduled to finish the general permit
it is developing until December 2010. I have heard that it may
be pushed back to January 2011. States are supposed to
implement their permitting programs by April 2011.
I am frankly amazed that your agency expects states to
implement that general permit into law in a mere four months'
time. Do you think it is reasonable for a state to implement,
that it is going to be reasonable for a state to implement a
complicated permitting system between January 2011 and April
2011?
I guess would you consider asking the Sixth Circuit to
extend the compliance deadline beyond April 2011 giving states
additional time to implement the permitting requirement; and if
they cannot meet it, if states cannot meet it by April 2011
deadline due to the lack of resources and the lack of time,
what do you suggest that they do? What are you going to suggest
to them that they do?
And I guess how about applicators in our states that do not
meet the deadline either. What are you going to recommend that
they do?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman.
From the beginning, EPA has worked to craft a proposed
general permit with the states and with stakeholders that meet
the court's direction but minimize the burden to states and to
the regulated community.
The idea of a general permit was, a general permit is
probably the least intrusive regulatory method. I realize that
a preference within the Ag community is no permit but the
general permit was intended to be the least intrusive way of
providing notification required through the court decision.
We have worked quite closely with states. I am certainly
not representing that we are there. The permit is out for
comment. That is why we are in a comment period where that work
continues.
We will finalize it as expeditiously as possible and we
will continue what has already begun which is extensive
outreach that will morph into training. The states will be the
ones to implement that permit, and we are very well aware of
that fact.
Chairman Lincoln. I would just say that we are at the end
of September here, and the possibilities of being able to see
that happen in that time frame become more and more bleak, and
I would just consider that I think probably one of the most
frustrating things to Americans right now is the lack of
certainty and the lack of predictability coming out of
Washington, and I would hate for this to be yet one more thing.
If states are not capable of implementing that in that time
frame, it is going to be very difficult for applicators and for
the states to be able to meet some of those deadlines.
So I hope that you will be prepared to provide the kind of
guidance that is going to be needed to be there if, in fact,
they cannot meet that. I would certainly suggest that we
actually try to reach out and see if we cannot do something
about a compliance deadline, moving that deadline to a more
reasonable time.
I have also been touring my State of Arkansas extensively
this year, and recently I heard an up tick in farmers voicing
their concerns about EPA coming on to their farms to inspect
their poultry operations.
I also know that EPA has identified the Illinois River
watershed in Oklahoma and Arkansas as a priority watershed. I
know that you are doing I think two watersheds in each of the
regional districts.
It is my understanding that this could lead to enforcement
measures against Arkansas poultry and cattle farms. As I
mentioned in my opening statement, my farmers do not get paid
full-time to sit around and think about environmental
compliance.
What efforts has your agency made to reach out to farmers
in this watershed regarding their compliance efforts? And you
know if it is true that EPA is starting to come on to their
farms, I think that EPA has sent out something to each and
every poultry farm, some sort of guidance document to help them
through this process.
Does EPA have a document that can help farmers in the
Illinois watershed understand, what is expected of them by you
all at the agency?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman.
It is my hope and intention that they have a clear
understanding of what EPA's compliance visits are meant to
achieve. If that is not the case, then I am happy to work with
you and your office to ensure that your constituents, that
there is no mystery around compliance visits.
Compliance visits do not assume nor do they presume nor do
they necessarily result in any kind of an enforcement action.
They are a visit which is intended to help farmers understand
what their compliance obligations are under law.
We have had some successful models in several watersheds. I
am familiar with one in the Shenandoah watershed where we were
very clear that we were going to conduct these visits. We try
not to surprise people. We try to give them information ahead
of time so that they will understand why we are there. But we
also acknowledge that oftentimes working with the state or with
elected officials is a good way to get information out to the
community because there is a lack of trust there.
Chairman Lincoln. I certainly know that you would want to
say that you have tried. I guess the key here is for the
uncertainty that exists and the concern that these farmers and
poultry growers have about what kind of fines and repercussions
and consequences they are going to suffer from that visit is
enormous.
I do not hear from them that they getting information. That
is why I am asking if you are sending out that kind of
information. I realize that you know you may think of this as
just a visit. But to be honest with you, it is not something
that is pleasurable for them to go through, not knowing what
the consequences could be particularly in these economic times.
I have seen some outrageous fines. I have seen some
outrageous circumstances when you get a lot of people that
normally sit behind a computer or from a regulatory standpoint
coming out onto a farm or to a poultry growers operation and
they are seeing things for the first time. It is enormously
alarming to those farmers that you know they do not know what
is going to happen, what is going to be the consequences nor
have they been given any kind of heads up or information in
terms of what the expectations are of them.
So I hope that some of that information can be more
forthcoming and I hope that there will be a greater partnership
built in terms of those visits and what the expectations really
are.
Just one last issue I would like to raise. I have heard
that EPA is providing two different interpretations of how it
views dust and feathers emitted from a poultry house fan.
One view is that it is a Clean Water Act discharge. The
other view is that it is not. I would sure hope that EPA will
clarify complications like these before they proceed.
When a fan blows in a chicken house, if any of you all have
been in one, I have been in many, there is a real difference.
So I hope that we can see more clarification.
It is truly the uncertainty and unpredictability that comes
out of Washington that is going to fail us in trying to put our
economy back on track and put people back to work if we do not
provide a greater certainty to growers.
So thank you. I will turn to the ranking member now for his
questions.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I certainly
would associate myself with your remarks there. We have got to
have some certainty in these regulations.
Administrator Jackson, the Georgia Department of
Agriculture requested a Section 18 emergency use exemption on
the behalf of Georgia vegetable growers for the fungicide
Manzate on March 18, 2010.
The usual turnaround time for an emergency use exemption is
50 days. The Georgia Department of Agriculture, the University
of Georgia, George chemical distributors, and Georgia growers
have provided EPA with all of the information needed to make a
decision on that date.
Can you give me a updated status on that and when we might
expect the decision to be made?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir, Senator.
As I recall, I am trying to find my note as we speak but it
is not happening. So let me do it from memory and I will get
you more information if I can.
The original information was certainly extensive but there
were still safety risks. The concern was that there were still
residual levels that did not comply with the law. And EPA did
not believe that there was sufficient basis to grant the
exemption.
Now, I think that there is still an opportunity. We did not
deny it but we did not grant it, and that was quite purposeful.
The idea was that we believe there is still a way to work
together to look at the risks and residue issues to try to find
circumstances with the agricultural community in Georgia where
there may be some opportunity for that exemption to be granted.
That is a fairly common process, sir, is my understanding.
There is a bit of back and forth in trying to find the right
spot in-between these exemptions being granted. But the work
continues.
When I was in Georgia recently, we talked about the need to
make sure that we are aggressively pursuing an alternative or a
potentially approvable request.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Well, it has been six months. I
just appreciate your folks staying in touch with our local
folks on the ground in Georgia to make sure there is an
opportunity to work together. We look forward to doing that but
it needs to be moving forward.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir, if I can just interrupt. My staffer
found the note, and it says later this fall we expect some
resolution.
Senator Chambliss. In July EPA requested critical use
applications for methyl bromide for 2013. In that request the
agency announced it was appropriate at this time to consider a
year in which the agency will stop requesting applications for
critical use exemptions.
Georgia growers have done an outstanding job transitioning
away from methyl bromide. In fact, Dr. Stanley Culpepper from
the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service tonight
will receive EPA's Montreal Protocol Award for his work on
methyl bromide alternatives.
However, I have serious reservations about EPA's preference
to stop requesting critical use exemptions in 2015. I would
like to ask you to include the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees in the agency's deliberations on this issue and get
a commitment from you that you would be willing to do that.
Ms. Jackson. To work with the Committees on these issues?
Senator Chambliss. To incorporate the House and Senate Ag
Committees in the deliberations on methyl bromide's
discontinuance, on those exemptions.
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely, sir, within any confines of the
law we are happy to include both Committees. We would value
your expertise and information and input on those issues.
Senator Chambliss. Well, I would like for it to be stronger
than that, Administrator Jackson. I mean you all have been
doing some things off the cuff down there that have been
delineated here this afternoon that are going to have a hugely
negative impact on agriculture in America.
What I would like to know is, are you telling us today that
when it comes to methyl bromide and these exemptions that you
are going to work with the House and Senate Ag Committees
before any decisions are made in the future?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Very good.
In the government's brief which was prepared in response to
agriculture's petition for Supreme Court review of the National
Cotton Council versus EPA case, the agency stated that it
believed that the Sixth Circuit reached the wrong conclusion in
that case and that EPA's rule was justified.
I believe EPA made the wrong decision not to defend its
rule and instead develop a general permit for pesticide
applications. As you know, EPA plans to finalize the general
permit by December of this year, and EPA and the states will
begin enforcing it beginning in April of 2011.
This is an extremely short period of time especially as it
requires the agency and states to issue 38,000 new permits. If
the agency will not change its position, I believe it needs to
ask the court for more time, specifically for at least an
additional year.
Would your agency be willing to do that?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I cannot commit to that today. I think it
is important that, right now it is important for folks to
understand that EPA is working awfully hard with stakeholders
to try to get compliance with the court's judgment and
decision.
If, as we move closer to the date, we decide we simply
cannot get there, then so be it. But we have been working very
hard with the permitting authorities, each of the states, to
implement a general permit that is workable and that is a
minimal additional burden to applicators who already have to
get permits for these pesticides in many states. States run
those permit programs.
Senator Chambliss. Again just like with my previous
question, I would hope that you would have an open dialogue
between the agency and the Committees on both the House and
Senate side on this issue because it again is just one of those
critical issues for the cotton industry that is going to have a
huge impact on the bottom line for our farmers and at the end
of the day we want to have a quality product. We want to make
sure that air and water is pure and clean. But we have got to
have that certainty and that understanding between farmers,
ranchers, and the EPA. And that means between the House Ag
Committee and the Senate Ag
Committee on issues like this.
I would simply encourage you that if you want to have a
desired resolution of all of these issues, you just stay in
touch with us.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, sir.
RM. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Lincoln. Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Madam Chair, thank you.
Let me start out and just thank the chair for holding this
hearing. I think we all feel it is a very important hearing.
Administrator, I suspect that if you sat down with every
Senator here today in anticipation of this hearing, they would
tell you that they have received a letter from one or more farm
groups in their state, to be blunt about it, attacking your
agency. I have a letter here and they refer to what you are
doing is a nonstop regulatory assault on agriculture. That is a
direct quote.
You see, there is a feeling out in the country that you
walked in, the President walked in, and every idea for more
regulation was dusted off and cut loose, and agriculture is
under attack, and that is how people feel.
I hear you say you were out there, and you have listened to
farmers, and that you have been with Secretary Vilsack. I just
would say to you it is one thing to listen; it is another thing
to hear.
It just seems like you pay lip service and then go on. Let
me give you an example. A group of us, a group of Senators
wrote you a letter, and let me quote for you a piece of federal
law. It says this.
``The Administrator,'' that being you, ``shall conduct
continuing evaluation of potential loss or shifts of employment
which may result from the administration or enforcement of the
provision of this chapter and applicable implementation plans
including, where appropriate, investigating threatened plant
closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from
such administration or enforcement.'' Unquote. It comes right
out of the Clean Air Act.
So our question to you was are you doing that, and your
response to us, and it is a longer response but there are three
sections that jump right out at me.
Again I am quoting from your letter. Quote. ``EPA has not
interpreted Section 321 to require EPA to conduct employment
investigations in taking regulatory actions. Secondly, EPA has
not conducted a Section 321 investigation of its greenhouse gas
actions. Third, we are not undertaking a Section 321 analysis
of PSD tailoring rule.''
Now, how does Congress get more clear with you? ``Shall''
seems to be quite obvious to me. You know we debate these laws.
We battle each other. We fight these things out. We finally get
a law passed, and it is like nobody is paying any attention.
You are just kind of out there doing your thing, whatever your
thing of the day is.
But here is the point I want to make to you. You are
hammering the little guy. The big guy that can get capital and
loans and access that will somehow find a way to deal with what
you are requiring even thought it is enormously onerous. And
even when you exempt or we exempt the smaller operator, they
still feel the ripple effects of what you are doing.
And you are just causing agriculture to consolidate more
and more and more at a time when quite honestly that is the
last thing we need is more consolidation in agriculture.
So my question to you is this. When you have such a clear
direction from Congress as you have got in Section 321, how
could you possibly reach a conclusion that an employment
analysis does not need to be done on something so important, so
fundamental, so job impacting as what you are doing in this
area? How can you ignore that?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, the concern in the countryside that I
have heard when I have gone out either with the Secretary here
in Washington or gone out myself is that EPA somehow has it in
for the agriculture sector.
My assurance is that we have nothing of the kind. I have no
personal agenda. I believe that we cannot be a strong country
without a strong agricultural sector, that we cannot be
prosperous if we cannot feed ourselves.
From an environmental perspective, importing food with the
huge carbon footprint that means is much less preferable than
being able to look at food miles and get our food locally,
nutritious homegrown food.
So first I just want to get it because it is so important
to Americans to understand that any belief that there is an
agenda that somehow targets that sector would be the furthest
thing from who I am, what my priority is as EPA Administrator.
I did check because I have seen the allegations. The year
before I became Administrator EPA put out about 120, somewhere
between 120, 125 regulations. Last year we did 94.
So there is no huge blowup in the number of regulations but
there is a huge regulatory backlog, much of it driven by court
cases which compel the agency to follow the law. I took an oath
to follow the laws of the land.
With respect to economic analysis of our rule making, one
of those 94 regulation was the tailoring rule which
specifically exempts agriculture and small businesses from
having to face any greenhouse gas regulation until at least
2016 when it is my fervent hope that by then there will be
legislation to govern those issues.
It was an attempt to give further assurance to those
sectors that they are not where we are looking for greenhouse
gas reductions. That being said, any rule we do has a full
regulatory impact analysis associated with it, and part of my
response to that letter I believe, I do not have to right in
front of me, references the fact that we take very seriously
our responsibility to put forth costs, benefits, and many of
our rules, we do our own review, and then we have independent
review at the White House, and then we go on to the public
comment and solicit further information.
I guess I want to end where I began which is that EPA
understands that we can have a clean and healthy environment.
We are working against ourselves if, at the end of the day,
that means that we are individually harming the agriculture
sector. It is not our intention.
Chairman Lincoln. Senator Conrad.
Senator Conrad. Well, I am going to start with a different
message. My message is thank you, thank you very much for what
you have just done in North Dakota to change the sulfate
standard in the Upper Sheyenne to allow greater discharges of
water to try to prevent an uncontrolled release of water from
Devil Lake. It is very significant what you and your agency did
to change the standard of 450 parts per million of sulfate to
750 in the Upper Sheyenne.
We have this situation in North Dakota that is unlike
anything anywhere else in the country. We have a lake called
Devil Lake and the lake is now three times the size of the
District of Columbia. It has gone up nearly 30 feet in the last
17 years.
The Federal Government also at the end of this year spent
$900 million dealing with this crisis. $900 million in my State
is a lot of money. We have raised dikes. We have raised roads.
We have taken a whole series of steps to try to deal with this
crisis.
We have an outlet running 250 CFS to try to relieve
pressure on that lake. We had a town that is about to be
engulfed. The town of Minnewaukan.
I had federal officials a number of years ago come out and
say why did they build the town so close to the lake? Well,
they were actually referencing the high school. Why did they
build it so close? When they built it, it was eight miles from
the lake.
This is the most incredible thing happening anywhere in the
country with a runaway lake. We are very appreciative that you
have changed the standard in a reasonable way to protect
health, to protect safety. And at the same time recognize there
is a much bigger threat to the environment if we have an
uncontrolled release out of the east end of the lake rather
than to have controlled releases out of the west end because
the water quality on the east end of the lake is five times
worse than the water quality in the west end.
It is a very unusual lake. It has a flow to it. The water
comes in the northwest and the lake flows east. And as it flows
east, it picks up sulfates.
So if we are going to reduce the risk of uncontrolled
release, and now we are within six feet of an uncontrolled
release, it is imperative that we move water and move more of
it. We are very appreciative that you and your agency
recognized that fact and changed the standard. That sent an
important signal.
We now need to go to the next step and adjust standards in
the Lower Sheyenne, and we are hopeful that we can make that
case in as persuasive a way as we did on the Upper Sheyenne.
Let me go to an issue that had been raised by my farmers,
and it is the number one issue with EPA in my State other than
Devil Lake. That is the question of the oil spill control issue
with aboveground storage, below ground storage. And producers
in my State are very concerned. I just had a Farmers Union fly
in. This was the number one issue on their list.
One of my concerns was the requirement that a professional
engineer must certified an oil spill plan. Is there a
possibility that could be adjusted so that if they are
following the basic design standards provided by the Extension
Service and/or the Natural Resources Conservation Service, that
that would be acceptable without having an engineer certify it?
I raised this because, number one, it costs a lot of money
to get an engineer. Number two, in my State it is very hard to
find additional engineering time because of the oil boom that
is going on in North Dakota. So farmers are deeply concerned,
number one, about the cost. Number two, how are they going to
get an engineering firm to come and do certification of a plan
on their property when they are completely overwhelmed with the
demands of the oil industry?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I am happy to look into the specifics.
Those are under the SPCC rule making I believe.
Senator Conrad. That is correct.
Ms. Jackson. And as you know, we right now I believe have
two rules out there, one that extends the compliance date, and
that is probably shortly going to be finalized because we are
out for comment and we need to finalize that rule.
That was an intention to work with the industry within the
confines of, of course, the other imperative which is we have
to be, prevention is extraordinarily important when it comes to
oil. I like Thad Allen's remark that nothing good happens after
oil hits the water. After that, everything is really just
trying to minimize bad. So we need to balance that. But I think
that extension is intended to give us time to deal with some of
these issues on implementation.
I am not sure if, as written, the regs would preclude your
suggestion, but I am happy to work with you.
Senator Conrad. I would be very interested to pursue that.
Second, just quickly if I could, is there anyway for EPA to
more accurately identify which producers are required to comply
by giving mapping areas where waters of the United States are
likely to be impacted or those places where they are unlikely
to be impacted? It seems like a common sense measure that there
might be some broad guidance given as to those places that are
especially vulnerable and those places that have very low risk
of movement into waterways.
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to work with your office of that
suggestion, sir.
Senator Conrad. A final if I could, the recommendation came
back from my farmers that the EPA take advantage of each states
cooperative extension service by working with them to design an
implementation and outreach strategy.
Cooperative extension in my State, and I think it is true
of almost all rural states, is out there in every county, have
an ongoing relationship with producers, and an education effort
I think would be enormously beneficial. Also kind of lower the
heat and the temperature on this issue.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you for that suggestion. We are happy to
incorporate that. That is a great idea. And, Senator, thank you
for your leadership on Devil Lake in particular.
Senator Conrad. It is absolutely the most incredible
experience that we have had, this lake that just keeps going up
and up. We know in 4,000 years of history three times it has
had an uncontrolled release, only in those days very sparsely
populated. If we have an uncontrolled release now out of the
east side, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Conrad.
In Senator Nelson's absence, we go to Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
welcome Administrator Jackson. I think I am one of the few
members on the Committee that also serves on the Environment
and Public Works Committee so we have done work together
before, and I appreciate your hard work and candid nature. I
also appreciate some of the work you did down in the Gulf
during the oil spill. Thank you for that.
Speaking of oil, a number of us had a meeting with you, and
I am glad you came to it. That was good you were there to talk
about the ethanol blend and the delays there. I just want say
we continue to be concerned. I know that EPA will soon be ready
to announce its decision on a waiver but I encourage you to
make that decision as soon as possible.
I see Senator Thune over there. A number of us have States
where we are waiting on biofuels. As I said at that meeting, it
is not a biofuel plant that blew up in the middle of a corn
field. That is a good fuel and we think it is part of our
energy future as we go forward.
We can talk about that in a minute. The second thing is the
dust issue which I think that has been covered so I am not
going to go on about that.
Another thing I wanted to raise is Senator Lugar and I are
putting a bill out that looks at, I have been trying to figure
out with all the good intentions how we keep cracking up
against each other on some of these agriculture issues. I
really think that sometimes people while they are trying to do
good work at EPA do not think about the repercussions on our
farmers and what it will mean, whether it is the dust issue,
whether it is in the manure issue, whether it is the milk
issue. There have been a number of things lately.
I do not think it is because they are trying to hurt these
farmers but I think it sometimes has that effect.
So Senator Lugar and I came up with one idea. It will not
solve everything. I know you have been getting feedback. But
looking at the Science Advisory Board that is headed by a
Minnesotan which is great but we realize that none of the
people on there really have an agriculture background and there
is something like 50 people on there.
So we are putting together a bill that we call
Representation for Farmers Act, to see if some of those people,
we are suggesting three, could be appointed by the USDA so that
we can try it to get some of that input from the agriculture
community.
We have run it by, it is supported by the Farmers Union,
the Farm Bureau, the Corn Growers Association, the National
Council of Farmer Coops, the National Milk Producers
Federation, wheat growers, and we have just been doing it for
three days.
So I just want you to consider it and we would love to have
your support. I think it could go a long way just on the front
end. And I do not think it is going to solve everything. There
is always going to be some tension but I think it is something
that we will want to look at.
I wanted to ask you about what is going on with the E-15.
And do you anticipate an announcement very soon regarding at
least the 2007 and newer vehicles and what is happening with
the waivers?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator, and I look forward to
taking a look at your forthcoming legislation. So thank you.
On E-15, as you know, we have been awaiting test results.
The tests are done by our partners and friends over at the
Department of Energy on a number of vehicles. We have most of
the results back. They are being QA/QCed and reviewed by my
staff. I am optimistic having seen the results so far for 2007
and newer vehicles, Tier 2 vehicles essentially.
We are waiting one last set of results. They are tear down
test results. I spoke to Secretary Chu yesterday and he
confirmed that he intends and believes they are on track to get
us those results by September 30.
Given that, we are prepared to render our waiver decision
within two weeks following receipt of those tests, and in fact,
have obviously been working on this issue for quite some time.
Senator Klobuchar. I understand. And then there is going to
be another series of tests after that or this is the first
grouping of tests and then is there another grouping?
Ms. Jackson. Correct. There are other tests that have
already been begun but they are taking a bit longer on other
vehicles. And through many discussions and the one you and I
were both present at, it was decided that one of the things
that would help the industry and the petitioner would be to get
at least a decision on that which we had complete data for.
So for 2007 these are really the tier two vehicles but the
shorthand is 2007 and later. The brief was that we should get
the information we have and make a decision there.
There are also other issues that will affect ethanol and E-
15. To the extent that they touch EPA, we have been
coordinating those. Some of them do not affect EPA at all.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Just again I want to urge as we
did at that meeting, the sooner we can go forward with this the
better. I just think the science is on our side on this end.
I am also concerned about various labels. I have said this.
We just have to make sure that we do this as quickly as
possible.
Another thing. The EPA recently announced it would exempt
dairy farmers from the Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures Act. I have cosponsored legislation to make
sure that this policy is put into place as soon as possible.
What is the status of implementing EPA's decision to exempt
dairy farmers from this law that was intended to prevent oil
spills?
I do not mean to keep bringing up oil spills but I will
just do it.
Ms. Jackson. It is quite all right. The exemption for milk,
for containers, is expected to be completed by February but the
news is that the containers would be regulated come November of
this year unless we extended the deadline. That extension will
likely be final in mid October. So within weeks.
So they will not be regulated and then the exemption, the
full exemption for milk will be following in February.
Senator Klobuchar. I am running out of time so I am just
going to put on the record some of the questions that I have on
atrazine as well as the boiler MACT rule. There is concern, a
lot of concern about that in my State and some of the other
things. Thank you very much.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you very much, Senator.
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome,
Administrator Jackson.
Let me first say I also thank you for joining us in a very
tragic situation with the Kalamazoo River with the oil spill
that occurred a while ago and I appreciate your willingness to
come out as quickly as you did and the efforts that are going
on are very important that we make sure this is cleaned up as
quickly as possible and does not happen again.
As a preface to my question, I have been involved in
agriculture committees for a long time and have been working on
pesticide issues actually a long time. I would urge you to
really take the time necessary to bring all parties to the
table to work out a balanced approach going forward on this.
When I was in the statehouse, I led an effort that took
about a year to bring all the players together from farmers and
environmentalists and agricultural business community.
Everybody. We had everybody.
It took a while but we came up with something that made
sense and it was science-based and it was something in the end
that was embraced by everyone to go forward because it was
certainty because it was science-based but it was also
addressing the broader goals and so on.
I would strongly urge you to take whatever time is
necessary to do that because this is an incredibly important
and impactful issue for us in agriculture.
On to my questions. When we look at a state like mine that
has great diversity of crops, more diversity of crops than any
other state except California, one that the prescriptive rule
is not going to apply across the board to all of our different
producers, I have concerns about what appears to be gray areas
here in this permitting process. You have talked about some.
But as I understand the rule that has been proposed in the
Clean Water Act general permit, outside of the four areas
specified, agriculture activities are not included.
This would suggest that producers may be liable in that
they would have to apply for an individual permits. As I am
sure is the case in a lot of places, I know producers in
Michigan that could apply pesticides which drift or by drift or
accidental application could flow to waters of the United
States such as our beautiful Great Lakes, that could happen.
But while I imagine permitting for the hundreds of
thousands of farms is not practical, is EPA planning to address
any agricultural applications of pesticides not outlined in the
general permit?
Ms. Jackson. Let me make sure, Senator, I am answering your
question. We do not cover terrestrial applications in the
general permit. That is something that we worked very hard to
ensure we were clear on.
Senator Stabenow. Yes. Are you saying that is exempt, those
agricultural practices?
Ms. Jackson. Our proposal, we do not cover terrestrial
applications of pesticides and does not cover spray drift, does
not alter existing provisions in the Clean Water Act that
provide exemptions for irrigation return flows or agricultural
storm water runoff.
So those are already features that we worked into our
discussions on the general permit as it already stands. I think
your question had more to do with other potential
opportunities. There are some places where pesticides are
applied over water, certain producers
Senator Stabenow. Or near.
Ms. Jackson. Or near, yes. If it is just drift issue, that
is not covered. We would welcome the opportunity and we
continue discussions with those. It is a fairly small number of
cases where the question is they know that they apply to water
and they are looking at the general permit and wondering if
that can cover them.
We probably are not ready yet to make a final
determination. That is something that has come out during
public comment but we welcome the opportunity to discuss it
further.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. The Clean Water Act clearly
states also in the definition of point source that agriculture
storm water discharges and return flows from irrigated
agriculture are excluded.
How may this limit a producer's liability in regards to any
type of permit?
Ms. Jackson. So they are exempt activities under the Clean
Water Act so they would not then be regulated activities under
this permit, meaning that those activities would not require a
permit as was proposed. I should caveat by saying we have a
proposed permit. We do not have a final at this point.
Senator Stabenow. Then if I might just quickly on
integrated pest management plans which are so important.
Michigan State University has been involved in working on many
of those working with experts on techniques for decades.
The plans are broad in scope. They cover more than just
pesticide use. They also guide growers in reporting and record
keeping. How does the EPA work with USDA to consider growers'
work with integrated pest management plans and are such plans
helpful to prevent future redundancy and paperwork?
Ms. Jackson. Integrated pest management is a win-win for
everyone. I mean pesticides cost money so growers love when
they can minimize the use of pesticides, and they certainly do
not to run it off into water because that is not working. The
leadership that USDA has shown, the leadership that your State
has shown, Senator, in running a wetlands, in thinking these
issues through and in its regulatory program is very important
to our work so thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Lincoln. Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Madam Administrator, thank you for being
with us today.
I want to associate myself with the comments that were made
by the Senator from Nebraska. The Environmental Protection
Agency has become public enemy number one of our farmers and
ranchers, and over the August break I had the opportunity to
meet with corn growers, wheat growers, soybean growers, cattle
producers, pork producers. I am sure lots of others.
But each of these groups have issues that were specific to
their industry but they all have one common concern, and that
was the overreaching EPA regulations and the harm that they are
doing to their industry in the rural areas. That comes in lots
of areas.
It is greenhouse gas regulations. It is threats to regulate
dust. The band of atrazine. It just seems like ag producers are
in the cross hairs of the EPA.
And in every case there are actions that drive up costs,
drive down the profits of family farms and ranches. It just
seems to me that we are losing our way when you have people in
rural America asking the Federal Government not for help but
just to stop hurting our rural communities.
And at the same time we got decisions that could be helpful
such as the E-15 issue which the Senator from Minnesota
mentioned that remain undecided. I am pleased to hear that
process is moving forward.
But our ag produces are the best stewards of our land and
of our environment. They go to work each day just not to make a
living but to feed the world and to preserve the land for
future generations.
They are very frustrated, and I just want to read you a
quote from the panel that will follow you from Mr. Rich
Hillman, who is a rice, soybean, and wheat producer, and he
states that farmers have never felt more challenged and more
threatened in their livelihood than they do today from the
continuous onslaught regulations and requirements from the EPA.
He goes on to say, ``The EPA proposals are overwhelming to
farmers and ranchers, and they are creating a cascade of costly
requirements that are likely to drive individual farmers to the
tipping point. In addition to driving up the cost of producing
food, fiber, and fuel, these proposals highlight EPA's goal of
controlling land use and water supplies. In many cases they
will bring citizen suit enforcement and judicial review of
individual farming practices.'' End quote.
I will tell you that is what I heard. That is what I heard
from the agricultural groups, individual produces all across
South Dakota. I know at times that out here what seems to make
sense just really does not in the rural areas of our country. I
make that as an observation and express the frustration that I
heard from individual produces during the August break.
I do want to come back to the E-15 issue. As I heard it, we
are looking at probably final data in the end of this month and
then shortly after that, a couple of weeks perhaps, a decision
on E-15. That is just with regard to 2007 vehicles and newer.
How about 2001 to 2007 vehicles?
Ms. Jackson. For 2001 to 2007 that testing is also ongoing.
It is taking a bit longer. I believe those test results are due
to begin by the end of the year, the calendar year. And EPA
will be in a position to make a determination as we see the
data obviously.
But we will again strive to be expeditious in our decision
making and review of the test data.
Senator Thune. Just coming back to making two announcements
on E-15, does not in some way two announcements actually create
more consumer confusion on the status of E-15?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly I guess that is one way to look at
it but we were asked and have talked to the applicant who
requested E-15 about whether some signal, we heard lots of
concerns about their needing to be a signal that this was not
going to be forbidden, this blend.
As we started to get the data back, what we committed to
and what we talked about was moving quickly in pieces
admittedly but in an attempt to give that signal.
Senator Thune. We are right now 10 months past the
statutory deadline for a decision on that. The 2007 and newer
vehicles decision seems to me again that when you create this
sort of a bifurcated approach to this that you in some respects
create even more confrontation than maybe perhaps already
exists.
But let me ask you with regard to the Department of
Energy's testing on E-15. Are you aware of any driveability or
parts compatibility issues with 2001 and new vehicles that are
directly related to the use of E-15?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I am not aware of them but we have not
received that information so that probably is not a complete
answer because we do not have the data.
Senator Thune. Are you aware of any evidence that E-15
would damage vehicles older than 2001? In other words, vehicles
manufactured before 2001?
Ms. Jackson. I am not personally aware of any data or any
test that has actually been----
Senator Thune. You are saying you do not think they are
testing vehicles that are older than 2001?
Ms. Jackson. I do not believe so, sir.
Senator Thune. I hope we get this resolved as quickly as
possible because this is one thing, and you were right about
the signal. This is an important signal to the industry. It is
important to agriculture to get this issue settled.
It seems like--I visited Oak Ridge. I visited NREL. The
testing has been going on for an awfully long time. It seems
they would have more than adequate data to get this issue
settled and I would hope that they would be able to at least
for 2001 vehicles forward approve it, and hopefully soon so
that we do not create even more uncertainty than we already
have.
I have another question, Madam Chair. I see my time has
expired, that I can submit for the record. I will say one of
the things again that it really concerned me about some of the
things that are happening over at your agency, the more recent
one of these is dust. There is a tremendous amount of concern
about that proposed legislation as well which I got an earful
about while I was traveling during the month of August.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson. There is no proposed regulation. So perhaps we
can get the word out there that EPA has proposed no regulation
on dust and I committed earlier to doing some listening
sessions before we even undertake such actions.
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you.
Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. I am sorry. I missed that. Was that dust,
there would be no regulations on dust?
Ms. Jackson. What I said, Senator, in my statement is that
there is no proposal on dust. We have a recommendation from one
of our scientists----
Senator Roberts. I wish you could stop it. We just had a
heck of a dust storm out in Kansas.
Ms. Jackson. I am sorry, sir.
Senator Roberts. I think you used to call it rural fugitive
dust. I will have more to say on that topic in just a minute.
How are you doing?
Ms. Jackson. I am fine. Thank you, sir. Sorry about the
dust storm.
Senator Roberts. Thank you for coming out to Kansas.
Actually you sent a team of experts out to Kansas. We would
have welcomed you to see that rather remarkable sight in
Treece. I think you remember that. They did good work.
And the State of Kansas stepping up and the citizens of
Treece will soon be able to move where financially they could
not before, and that was a terrible waste site. It was very
dangerous and you did a good job on that and I want to thank
you for that.
Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said
especially Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, the Chairman,
everybody here, also on the other side of the aisle.
How many people know that Devil Lake is named after Senator
Conrad.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. It is the same thing as Senator Thune just
said. I mean I cannot go to an agricultural meeting with any
commodity group, any farm organization without them saying what
on earth is going back there. It is usually a you-guys thing.
What are you guys doing back there? Guys is not gender related.
I say I am an us-guys. I am not a you-guy. And probably 8
times out of 10, it comes down to the EPA and what we think is
questionable in challenged science is doing in regards more to
agriculture and our national economy and our national security
because agriculture does affect that.
88 percent of the land in Kansas is utilized for some form
of agriculture production with 61 percent of the total in crop
land, 34 percent pasture land, very similar to the Dakotas,
Nebraska.
Having an abundance of productive farm ground allows Kansas
to rank in the top five nationally in the exports of wheat,
grain, sorghum, sunflowers, live animals and meats, as well as
hides and skins.
One in five of our folks out there are involved in
agriculture in one way or another. So that is really just
stating the obvious, and I am stating the obvious again and
again. I apologize for doing that. It is a terribly important
and I think it is reflective of all of agriculture all across
the country.
Animal feeding operators, custom harvesters, chemical
applicators, flour millers, even public health officials
influence the environment. Some activities do actually create
dust--I will come back to that in a minute--while others do use
chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers to grow the food and fiber.
It really keeps us from starvation and malnutrition around
the world. I always put out in Southern Command there are 31
nations down south. The average age of the folks down there
which is 14. They are malnourished.
If all of a sudden you have a disaster that hits like in
Haiti and other places in the world, we have the ability and
the farmer has the capability of this production miracle to
immediately step forward and provide help and assistance.
So the thing I would like to point out too is in order to
turn a profit, they must protect the land and water. They do
not have a choice. So it is not only that we all want to see
clean air and clean water, that is the ``While I'' speech,
while we want clean air and clean water, let me point out that
this is not the way to do it in terms of the regulatory means
that we do this.
The farmer would never put the seed in the ground if he or
she was not an optimist. But they are not as optimistic today
about how they will comply with the laundry list of regulations
that the Senator has just mentioned, Senator Thune.
They are not as optimistic about how they can continue with
this kind of situation. The list goes for everything from
expanding the definition of waters of the United States to
tightening the national ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter to lowering the threshold for inorganic
arsenic in the ground water to opening up an unscheduled review
of atrazine.
I have the head of the Kansas corn producers to speak to
that, and he has a unique tale to tell about what happened
after he stood before the Scientific Advisory Panel and
probably even testifying before us, Madam Chairman.
Are you still there? Great. I expect a couple ``Amens''
from you but any rate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Very unusual circumstance and he will
testify to that and it is a very worrisome thing about a
chilling effect on people in any farm organization willing to
talk about these things.
Then you want to regulate the range burning on the Flint
Hills which has been a tradition for many years and then to
also regulating dioxin below naturally occurring background
levels. All of that has Kansans concerned.
It is the third time around for me. I was a bucket totter
for my predecessor in the Congress, a staffer. I was
administrative assistant, and finally he got so upset about
this business back in the 1970s about rural fugitive dust and
it became almost a laughing matter until farmers figured out
that the EPA was serious.
So I tried to track down the person who actually was in the
business to promulgate, that is a great word, to promulgate in
the Federal Register what was going to happen to rural fugitive
dust. It took me three days.
Finally I found this very nice lady in EPA who was from
Massachusetts. Where else? I agreed with her because she said,
``Do you realize how many gravel road you have out there in
Kansas?'' I said, ``Yes, ma'am, I have been down about everyone
of them.''
``Do your realize how much dust you are creating in regards
to cattle trucks or grain trucks or pickups or whatever?''
``Yes, ma'am,'' I said, ``Do you realize what we have done in
terms of conservation, the Great Plains conservation program,
and all?'' I listed all the things we have done for the dirty
30s.
Finally I said, ``What do you want us to do? What is your
suggestion? How can we get away from you putting the EPA sights
on us out here for rural fugitive dust which I found rather
unique?''
She said, ``Well, why do you not just send out water trucks
at 10 o'clock in the morning and then again at 3 o'clock in the
afternoon and spray down those roads?'' Pause. ``It is a great
idea. Could you provide the trucks and the water?'' Pause.
``No.''
That was sort of a standoff. Then it sort of, like other
dust, settled. I do not think we ever got in the business of
fining farmers or locking them up or whatever it is if they
decided to go in a pickup to town down a gravel road.
And then in the 1980s it was back. I do not know why you do
these things. I mean you are supposed to be digital now. Throw
all those files the way. They dug out the files and brought the
thinking back. I do not know what happened when you all came in
first.
You probably said, ``Well, let us take a look at what we
have done in the past and what we need to do in the future.''
Now by golly we have rural fugitive dust back again.
Are you going to tell me we are going to have to get more
water and water trucks and do that in the morning and the
afternoon? One other thing.
Navigable waters. Applicable to farm ponds where our
critters go into cool off. We do not swim in those farm ponds.
We do not drink any water out of those farm ponds. Most of the
time they dry up, and no self-respecting duck would ever land
on those farm ponds, and yet they could be declared navigable
waters.
Then that sort of faded away and it is back and it is like
Lucy and Charlie Brown kicking the football, and I cannot
remember now, I think in the little circle of what he said in
the cartoon it was A-A-R-R-G-H-H! I do not know how to
pronounce that. Some farmers do.
But instead of picking up the football, I think it is sort
of like an anvil down there, switching it, and boom he hits
right into things like rural fugitive dust and navigable
waters.
Those are the ones that you can point to with some degree
of, it is not levity. It is just to illustrate the point. But
Jere White is here. He is from the Kansas Corn Growers. He has
quite an experience to tell about atrazine. It actually takes
the place of multiple pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides,
whatever that it is kind of used for at levels that we think
are safe. And he has really paid a price for it.
So here is my suggestion.
Chairman Lincoln. You need to wrap it up at this point.
Senator Roberts. Yes, I am five minutes over but there is
nobody here except you, Madam Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. You did not recognize me first so you got
to pay for it at the end.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. You told me to come here off the floor and
raise hell so that is what I am trying to do here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Historically the Department of Agriculture
and the Food and Drug Administration, the EPA, and Health and
Human Services, even the Department of Labor, and yes, even the
CIA--I used to be chairman of intelligence because of the
importance of our food supply and safety of our food supply, et
cetera, et cetera, they worked together on many projects to
help protect our Nation's food supply, environmental quality,
and the economic viability of production agriculture.
How can the American public be sure that your agency is
protecting scientific integrity through a risk-based approach
rather than a precautionary stance to regulate dust, water,
pesticides, chemicals?
Is there any sort of cost benefit yardstick that all
agencies should sort of agree on, and say, look, this is not
the old testament. This is the new testament with all of the
scientific means that we have today in a parts per trillion
scientific world.
I mean there is a little bit of something in everything. I
am just wondering if all the agencies could not get together
and say, look, to prevent the civil suits that are popping all
over the countryside and which, as Mr. White can testify to and
how he got dragged into it is rather amazing, but at any rate,
could there not be some yardstick that we would all agree on
and say, okay, from a stability standpoint instead of changing
the rules every decade and coming back to rural fugitive dust
for the fourth time when the administration changes next, it is
regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat, but at any
rate can we not have some kind of a common measuring thing on
it? This is what we are going to do and we are going to do it
in a unified way and a regular way. Please.
Administrator Jackson. At the risk of going further, why do
I not simply answer, sir, by saying that, first, there are no
fugitive dust rules. We have a scientific group, a Federal
Advisory Committee, who have recommended particulate matter
health-based standards.
Senator Roberts. Can you send them out during harvest? That
would be a good deal. Just send them out during harvest and
they can drive the grain truck.
Ms. Jackson. But what I committed to is that we are not
going to propose any rules or change any rules without
embarking on a process to work with the agricultural community.
The rules are not for agriculture. Particulate matter comes out
of trucks, comes out of diesel, and are a huge concern around
ports. There are plenty areas in this country where PM10
emissions are killers.
Senator Roberts. I know the lawn mowers play a big part of
that in the Kansas City area around August which is another
problem but I am not going to get into that.
What about a common yardstick? And the other thing is,
certainly mentioned by the Chairman and the Ranking Member you
know keep us posted and we can have a good dialogue but, man,
if you could just get all these alphabet soup agencies together
and say here is where we think we are. These are acceptable
levels. That may change I mean if there is some terrible
circumstance but it would certainly give us some stability.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir. Senator, I am happy, one thing I
take from this hearing is the need to stay close to this
Committee. There were several requests that the Committee have
much more information and consideration of what we are doing
and we are happy to do that, and we have and I have worked very
hard with Secretary Vilsack to ensure that the most important
department with respect to these issues that we work very
closely. I will redouble those efforts. I am happy to do that.
Senator Roberts. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Administrator Jackson. I will just reiterate
what I think most of the members here have all expressed, and
that is, when we go home to our district, we talk to the people
that we represent. And I will be honest with you. I am going to
make no apologies whatsoever for standing up for the hard-
working farm families across this country that really do work
hard day in and day out to provide the safest and abundant and
affordable supply of food and fiber but they do it with great
passion, Madam Administrator.
They do it with a great passion towards not only what they
are doing but how they are doing it. It is with great care and
great compassion for the land and for the environment, and I
think often times they feel like when they hear things from
Washington that they are not doing anything right or that they
are constantly being asked to do things that are impossible.
So I would just say if there is anything, we would like to
ask that there is communication. I know they want to be
included. I think they feel like that they have had no role in
these settlement agreements, that EPA has worked with other
groups, the NGOs, the environmental groups, and yet agriculture
does not feel like they have had a seat at the table.
So I would ask of you to engage with them. Try to put
yourself in their shoes and better understand what their
challenges are.
I tour the state frequently, and whether it is talking to
farmers or educators or anybody else, small businesses and
others across our State, when they look at Washington, they say
do not lower your expectations of us. We want to do the best
that we can possibly do, whether it is teaching children or
growing food and fiber, whether it is creating jobs or
whatever. But give us goals that we can reach.
I think that the frustration in so many ways is that they
feel like that the goals and the parameters that are being sent
for them are things they cannot reach.
With the slim margins that they are already facing and the
fact that day to day the variables that they face could cause
them really to go out of business, and regulations and other
things on top of that just exacerbate that problem.
So we certainly ask you to work with us. It is great to
work with Secretary Vilsack. He is a good man, and the
Department of Agriculture is great.
For those of us that are out there in the field with our
constituents, it is so critical for them to have a seat at the
table. We just really would like to ask you to hopefully help
us make that happen.
Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate it. We look
forward to working with you.
I would like to ask the witnesses on the second panel to
come forward and be seated.
Our panel includes Rich Hillman, who is the Vice President
of the Arkansas Farm Bureau. Jay Vroom, who is President and
Chief Executive Officer of Croplife America. And Jere White,
who is the Executive Director of the Kansas Corn Growers
Association.
Senator Roberts will be back so do not worry, Mr. White, he
is not going anywhere.
Gentleman, your written testimonies will be submitted for
the record so I would like to ask you to try to keep your
remarks within that five minute rule. We are very grateful that
you are here.
It is my pleasure to welcome a fellow Arkansan and a good
friend of mine, Rich Hillman, somebody I know who has had a
pair of boots on and knows what it is like out there in the
field.
Mr. Hillman has been a rice, soybean, and wheat farmer
since 1983 in Lonoke County, Arkansas. He served on the
Arkansas Farm Bureau Board of Directors since 2001. He is a
leader in the agriculture community in my home State, and we
are fortunate that he is here with us today to share his
insight into running a farming operation and the effects of EPA
regulations. We are grateful to have you.
I also want to thank Jay Vroom. It is a pleasure to have
him also on our witness panel. Mr. Vroom is president and CEO
of Croplife America where he has been since 1989. He has been a
lifelong advocate of U.S. agribusiness trade associations.
Mr. Vroom was born and raised on a grain and livestock farm
in north central Illinois which he owns to this day. So we are
grateful not only for Jay's understanding of the agribusiness
trade arena but also his understanding of what goes on a farm
on a day-to-day basis.
It is also our pleasure to have with us today Jere White.
Mr. White is a fifth generation livestock producer in Garnett,
Kansas. He serves on several board of directors for various
agricultural organizations and has been Executive Director of
Kansas Corn since 1988.
Today he provides testimony as chairman of the Triazine
Network which represents atrazine and related triazines which
farmers use of herbicides.
So we will start with Mr. Hillman and go down the line.
Senator Roberts will be back shortly.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RICH HILLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ARKANSAS FARM
BUREAU, CARLISLE, ARKANSAS
Mr. Hillman. Madam Chair and members of the Committee, my
name is Rich Hillman. I am a fifth-generation rice, wheat,
soybean the farmer from Carlisle, Arkansas. I am vice president
of the Arkansas Farm Bureau and I am pleased to offer this
testimony on behalf of our members across our great State.
Let me begin by saying that farmers and ranchers have never
felt more challenged and more threatened concerning their
livelihood than they do today from the continuous onslaught of
regulations and requirements from the Environmental Protection
Agency. I hope my testimony today somehow represents the
frustration that Arkansas farmers and ranchers are feeling.
Over the past few decades agriculture has worked with USDA
to make enormous strides in its environmental performance by
adopting a range of practices and measures. We are proud of our
accomplishment and believe that our overall environmental
footprint is smaller today than it was 50 years ago.
Incidentally in that same time period we have seen to double
our production.
Chairman Lincoln, as you stated in your opening comments,
there are many regulatory issues facing farmers and ranchers
that are very concerning. I would like to expand on a few.
Currently in Arkansas all farmers and ranchers are required
to have a restricted-use pesticide license. Chairman Lincoln,
in your opening statement also mentioned FIFRA and the Clean
Water Act and the current efforts of the EPA to require a
pesticide general permit, an additional permit. This would mean
not only additional expense but it would also place a burden on
the farmer, rancher to apply for and to receive a permit every
time we had to treat our crop. When insects attack, they
usually come with a vengeance. In the matter of hours, they can
destroy our postures and other crops.
Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your leadership and
work on this matter and we strongly support your legislation,
Senate Bill 3735. I would like to take this opportunity to ask
the other members of the Senate Agricultural Committee to join
with you and Senator Chambliss in cosponsoring that Senate Bill
3735. Agriculture needs your help now.
In Arkansas for over 20 years, we have had a permitting
program in place requiring all animal feeding operations with
liquid manure systems to obtain no discharge permits. The Farm
Bureau was a key supporter in the creation of this permitting
process.
EPA recently announced that the Illinois River watershed in
Arkansas had been selected as one of its priority watersheds.
This has resulted in two noticeable events. The first, the
announcement of a TMDL study and increased inspections and
enforcement of AFOs.
At the same time EPA has insisted Arkansas State agencies
start a process of developing a methodology to establish
numerical standards for nutrients and developing a confined
animal feeding operations CAFO permit.
The potential to discharge language in CAFO was very vague
and confusing. It does not clearly define who must apply. We
believe this is intentional and it is an attempt to avoid the
court's ruling that only those actual discharges must obtain a
permit.
Chairman Lincoln, as you well know poultry producers in
Arkansas are struggling. Their profit margins are razor thin.
They are good stewards of the land, and additional regulations
add additional expenses which they can simply not afford.
Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures is another
thorn in agriculture's side. EPA wants us, farmers and
ranchers, to build the retaining walls around fuel tanks in the
middle of our fields and pastures. This would cost us thousands
of dollars to mitigate what? EPA is attempting to address a
problem that simply is not there.
In closing, the farms and ranches across our Nation are
privately held land that are coveted and cared for. They have
provided not only a living for hundreds of thousands of farm
families but have secured our Nation by feeding it.
Year after year through floods, droughts, we have provided.
Why would anyone want to keep us from doing that? Why would any
agency try and change what we do best? And that is to feed this
great Nation and the rest of the world.
Madam Chairman, I commend you for hosting this hearing and
for all of your work on behalf of agriculture in Arkansas and
across this great country. I would be glad to entertain any
questions at this time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hillman can be found on page
47 in the appendix.]
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you, Rich, and I know you are
missing the first day of the conference in Arkansas so if you
need me to write an excuse for you just see me after the
hearing.
Mr. Hillman. I would appreciate that. They are watching
incidentally by internet so that put a little additional
pressure on me but I thank you again.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Lincoln. We are glad you are here.
Mr. Vroom.
STATEMENT OF JAY VROOM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CROPLIFE AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Vroom. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Roberts and other
members of the Committee so much for convening this hearing to
look at the entire landscape of environmental regulation facing
the American farm families.
I am indeed here today representing Croplife America, the
trade association, as you indicated, that represents those
companies that provide virtually all of the crop protection
materials used by American farmers but I am also personally
held accountable by another authority which is that group of
family members who are at home in Illinois trying to harvest
right now.
In fact, I spoke with one of my brother-in-laws this
morning who was gracious enough when I told him I was coming up
here to visit with the Committee that he said, wait a minute,
let me stop and shut the engine off. We need to talk. So I
barely made it up here in time.
So I do feel a personal responsibility to this as well as a
professional one. I will speak about those regulatory matters,
some of which have already been delved into quite extensively
already here this afternoon with regard to crop protection
materials and EPA's regulation of those materials as well as
those pesticide materials that are used in non- agricultural
activities. I will talk specifically about one of those as
presented by our partner association, RISE.
But as I have listened so far, the one thing that really
has struck me is, oh, my goodness, is it any wonder that the
American public is upset? The news media repeats this for us
everyday, especially as we are anticipating the upcoming
elections, that the American public are fed up and
sick and tired of business as usual here Washington, DC.
And as I think about it with respect to the things that we
know best in the crop protection space and the interface with
EPA, it really is a tale of three conflicting laws, three
conflicting and out of touch and redundant federal agencies and
the two offices within one of those federal agencies that just
cannot quite get it right.
We talk to those federal agencies a lot, of course, and
with regard to, for instance, NPDS Clean Water Act issue that
has already been talked about a good bit, we do think that we
are at a point where the proposal that you and Senator
Chambliss have made with regard to the Senate bill that Mr.
Hillman just described and endorsed, and we did too, is timely
because without that kind of assistance from Congress we fear
that we do have a train wreck ahead of us.
With all due respect to Administrator Jackson's explanation
of the fact a few minutes ago, sitting in this chair, that the
application of pesticides by farmers near water are not
intended to be captured by this predatory regime and
permitting, we all know that farmers farm near water.
Most farmers hope they are near water and that water comes
to help the crop grow. It is essential. So the NPDS regulatory
and legal experts that we have retained as we have tried to
work through this have told us with regard to decades of
experience in the Clean Water Act and NPDS permitting, prior to
this moment when it is now going to be applied to pesticides
because of the Sixth Circuit decision, they have never seen an
NPDS permit standstill or be adjusted to become more
reasonable.
It is always mission creep day after day after day. So it
is clear to us that the American farmer should be concerned
about this arriving on his or her doorstep, not only in terms
of regulatory burden but also in terms of the fact that it
creates so much additional liability, and farmers including my
brother-in-law who reminded me again this morning, sitting on
the combine, are concerned about that liability.
The Endangered Species Act, another place where we need
help from Congress. Can you pass a law perhaps or at least help
provide more guidance and instruction to EPA and those other
conflicting laws and regulatory agencies, the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service who keep
just talking past each other.
I just read a report a couple days ago about the spotted
owl. We remember that our friends in forestry endured a
terrific calamity decades ago when it was decided by a federal
court that old growth harvesting needed to stop in order to
protect the spotted owl, an endangered species.
Yet this most recent report says that the populations of
the spotted owl have continued to decline even though we have
stopped harvesting in those old growth areas.
The forestry industry is also an important customer of the
pesticide industry and one that is going to be directly
impacted by this NPDS permitting.
Lastly, spray drift policy. Madam Chairman, you mentioned
earlier in your opening remarks very serious concern and one
where the agency just has not been able to focus on the clear
and plain language in the statute of FIFRA that says that the
risk standard is no unreasonable adverse effect.
I would encourage you to guide, instruct the agency to make
sure that when and if they do go about publishing a policy or
regulation to govern spray drift that they always keep it
connected to that risk standard that is in your statute.
Thank you very much and I look forward to responding to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vroom can be found on page
66 in the appendix.]
Chairman Lincoln. Thank you.
Mr. White.
STATEMENT OF JERE WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KANSAS CORN
GROWERS ASSOCIATION, BARNETT KANSAS
Mr. White. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
Committee and Mr. Roberts for his attendance this afternoon.
My name is Jere White, and I am the Executive Director of
the Kansas Corn Growers Association and I do that role for
Kansas Grain Sorghum as well. I appear today also as chairman
of Triazine Network. The Triazine Network is not merely a
coalition of agricultural groups but one that represents over
30 crops grown in over 40 states. Those crops include corn,
citrus, tree fruit, sorghum, vegetables, grapes, sugar cane,
macadamia nuts. If it is grown, there is a chance that it is
touched by our organization.
Atrazine is a herbicide that American farmers have used for
weed control for more than 50 years. It has been found to be
safe by the governments of Great Britain, Australia, and many
countries including the U.S. EPA.
This morning I learned that the World Health Organization
has adopted a new water quality standard, drinking water
quality standard, and that new standard is over 33 times the
current U.S. standard, 33 times.
Atrazine is one of the most steady molecules on earth. On
multiple occasions over the last decade, EPA has declared the
product safe after rigorous scientific review using the highest
quality data, and even as recently as last July.
However, within weeks of last summer's positive report
posted on their website, something happened, something that
undermined all this deliberation, all this science.
By the end of August of last year, a raft of spurious
ecological epidemiology studies began to appear. They were
promoted by trial attorneys, advanced by environmental groups
with anti-agricultural agendas and their well-heeled PR
advisors, and certainly picked up and ran by scare articles in
the New York Times and also the Huffington Post.
Trial lawyers joined forces with environmental activists
and sought to regulate through the courts what science could
not support within the EPA regulatory process way back in 2004.
For instance, the EPA began to make their determination
that atrazine was safe to continue to use in an interim
registration decision that was published in 2003. The first
trial lawyer lawsuit was filed in Illinois in 2004.
But this is a different game now. Last fall they found the
EPA very receptive to take the bate. Media frenzy prompted the
EPA to announce the new comprehensive scientific re-review of
atrazine with a break pace of four SAPs between November of
2009 and just simply two weeks ago. Two more are scheduled
quickly to follow in 2011.
Amazingly EPA actually cited the media and activist reports
for re-opening a scientific review process they just put to
rest. EPA was not scheduled to review atrazine again until 2013
as part of their scheduled review of all pesticides.
In February an SAP considered the very studies EPA
referenced to initiate this rush to re-review atrazine.
Scientists at the SAP conclude that the overall quality of
these studies was relatively, and certainly had the agency
followed its own process of internal data evaluation prior to
taking it to an SAP, it would have known that the studies were
not useful in the regulatory process.
This is just one way in which the agency's rushed re-
review does not align with the processes that have up until now
confirmed the EPA reliance on the best quality data available.
Growers and associations which have provided comments in
support of atrazine are now being targeted by the activist
trial attorneys. Subpoenas are being issued for massive,
expensive, and time-consuming production of records unrelated
to any litigation.
We are being harassed, even bullied, for daring to defend
ourselves. The message is clear, if you stand up for atrazine
you best be prepared to pay a price.
I testified in support of atrazine at last week's SAP,
sharing our concerns over trial attorney harassment of
stakeholders as part of my comments. The very next day activist
attorneys sought and obtained subpoenas against Kansas Corn,
Kansas Grain Sorghum, and me personally.
These subpoenas, not only do they intend to come into my
offices on the 30th without any prior discussion whether my
office might be available, they require me to be a Garnett,
Kansas on the 30th at 10 o'clock as well as Olathe, Kansas on
the 30th at 10 o'clock, depending on which hat I am wearing I
guess that day. Fortunately I will be in the Ukraine on the
30th at 10 o'clock.
Most farmers live next to their fields. They raise their
children in these environments; and if there was any real harm
in atrazine, the American farmer would have been the first to
notice and certainly the first to care.
They value atrazine because it is effective and it is safe.
That is why well over half of U.S. corn, two-thirds of sorghum,
and about 90 percent of sugar cane is protected from weeds by
the use of atrazine.
For the farmer, however, atrazine is not a matter of
politics. It is a matter of staying in business in what is
still a rough economy.
EPA estimated in 2006 that atrazine provides a $28 per acre
benefit for corn, and while significant, we believe that number
is actually much larger today.
While environmental activists demonize atrazine, farmers
know that atrazine enables an enormously productive benefit for
the environment called conservation tillage. In 2008, for
example, 64 percent of atrazine used in corn supported
conservation agriculture practices that help sequester carbon,
reduce fuel consumption, and improve a farm's overall carbon
footprint as well as reduce soil erosion.
I realize the members of this distinguished body have many
important issues before you today. EPA's treatment of atrazine
may not sound like a high priority but it is a matter of great
importance to the farm economy.
EPA at the highest levels needs to provide guidance to
ensure that years of scientific review conducted under both
Republican and Democratic administrations is not undermined. In
addition, I believe our elected agricultural leaders must help
EPA to understand the implications of their failure to do so.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White can be found on page
75 in the appendix.]
Chairman Lincoln. Thank all of you gentlemen for your
testimony and we appreciate you coming before us today.
Mr. Hillman, a few minutes ago you mentioned several
concerns regarding the increased regulatory burden that farmers
are facing these days and there is no doubt, as you mentioned,
the margins are slim and really quite frankly as I mentioned so
many times today the uncertainty and unpredictability of what
you are up against whether it is regulation, weather, trade,
price volatility, just a whole host of things.
Of course, our State is diverse. In terms of farming
operations, we have row crops in the east. We have forest in
the south, and poultry and livestock throughout the State, and
I know that all of our farmers all over the State are concerned
about EPA's aggressive regulatory approach.
What in your view are the major EPA regulatory issues
facing the producers in Arkansas if you had to just pick the
two top ones? I know we have mentioned a lot here today. But
what would you say are those top two for Arkansas?
Mr. Hillman. Chairman Lincoln, I think that you did mention
that the whole State would be affected by any and all. But I
think at the top of the list, two, CAFO, the poultry industry,
if this is enacted, if their feathers fall out of their house,
or the dust, even in the ditch, not even in water, they will be
regulated like they have never been before, certainly northwest
Arkansas and also southwest Arkansas, and I mentioned in my
testimony that the profit margin that these folks are having
right now is actually razor thin. An additional expense, and
make no mistake about it, the expense is going to be there.
The second would be the FIFRA. I think that would not only
affect me as a row crop farmer, it would certainly affect the
delta but it would affect the whole state as well.
As I stated in my testimony, we currently already use and
have and applying for and are trained for a restricted use
license. We do that on the State level. Incidentally, we work
well with all of our State agencies that oversee what we do for
a living. This really would affect us. It would affect the
whole State. You are talking about a whole new avenue of
permitting.
I know you said two but the spill prevention. You know for
a smaller farmer having to go out there and build containment
walls to the specs that the engineering firms deem necessary, I
say again I do not know that there is a great problem with that
whatsoever.
So I guess that would be my comments.
Chairman Lincoln. Well, I just note your second issue there
on the FIFRA. I remember as a child my dad taking great care in
terms of what applications he made and how he made them,
studying for the testing to be able to get that permit, not
because he just wanted to pass because he wanted to do the
right thing.
I think often times when we find people here, bureaucrats
in the regulatory agencies who have not walked in those boots
they do not really understand the sense of pride and dedication
that farm families all across this country have in producing a
good quality crop with great respect to the environment and
doing all that they can.
We appreciate that.
Mr. Vroom, you have had some insightful testimony regarding
the history and the background of pesticide regulation.
This Committee does have direct jurisdiction over FIFRA. It
has served its purpose for many years in protecting both the
environment and applicators.
As you have noted, new developments under the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act along with proposed spray
drip guidance are threatening our FIFRA effective regulatory
scheme.
What are some of the specific instances where delays in
that Endangered Species Act biological opinions will prohibit
producers who utilize crop protection products?
And I have to say you also mentioned the aerial applicators
better known as crop dusters. When I was in high school, I
learned how to fly from a crop duster who served his country in
Vietnam as a pilot. They do a tremendous job.
If you have ever been out there in those fields, as we
have, and you know what happens when those planes come in and
out over the fields, thinking about spray drift and other
things like that it boggles your mind to think that you are
going to be able to do what it is that they wanted you to do.
Mr. Vroom. Well, so I think specific to your question it is
really in the holistic context these different laws that are
not designed to work together and now you know we have had them
on the books like the Endangered Species Act and FIFRA together
for more than 35 years.
For most of the time, there were not complex but extremist,
activist organizations with very smart lawyers found favorable
courthouses to go to and bring litigation that suddenly started
to create this collision.
Then out-of-court settlements that you have alluded to
earlier where not all of the parties including our industry got
to participate at the table for settlement discussions and you
get outcomes that take valuable tools away from farmers which
do not necessarily result in any benefit to the endangered
species, a la, the spotted owl and old-growth timber that I
mentioned earlier.
So do we really want to look up and be 10 or 20 years down
the road and have lost lots of important technology and still
not benefiting those endangered species and suddenly 10 or 20
years from now or maybe even sooner the United States of
America is a net food importer.
I have had the opportunity, because a lot of our member
companies are headquartered in Europe, to be there a lot this
year, and I have heard over and over again the European Union
is a net 35 billion euro, that is more dollars than euros, food
importer.
Do we really want the United States of America to be there
in a few years? And it is largely because of the precautionary
principle of regulation of technology that has either been
taken away from the European farmer or, in the case of
biotechnology, has never been even made available to the
European farmer.
The American farmer is supplying some of that need through
the production of soybeans that we export to the European Union
but very little corn and corn products because again of that
biotechnology restriction.
So I think you need to really put it in that kind of
context, and for those Americans who are not engaged in
agriculture directly, in production agriculture, those of us
need to understand that $100 billion plus that Senator
Chambliss mentioned of agricultural exports do not just go
directly into the pocket of the American farmer.
It is generating enormously powerful, great number of jobs
at the docks loading the ships, in plants manufacturing food to
you know higher values for export, all matter of great
employment that adds in ripple effect to our economy.
Again I think it needs to be put into holistic context. I
am not here to just kind of whine about you know EPA and FIFRA
and pesticide regulation but to ask that you know the country
think about this and the Senate in particular think about the
ability to encourage EPA to work with us.
I honestly believe that Administrator Jackson does want to
do the right thing. She has very personal ties with
agriculture. She has a lot on her plate as you mentioned with
the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and many other important
issues.
So if she can be encouraged along with her team to work
more closely with all us in the agriculture community as you
have been suggesting on both sides of the aisle here this
afternoon, I think we can get back to the table and make that
kind of progress to preserve the technologies the American
farmer needs and ensure that we continue to be leaders in the
world's food and fiber and renewable production.
Chairman Lincoln. That is great. I think finding common
ground and working together is going to be the critical part of
this, and you are exactly right. We need to work with the
Administrator to reach that.
Mr. White, we certainly appreciate your comments in the
importance of atrazine to the production agriculture and
certainly the vast body of scientific studies regarding that
impact. It is critical for us to look at the science-based
information that is there.
If farmers lost their ability to use atrazine, how would it
impact their farming operations, their costs, and those tilling
practices that you mentioned? That would be I guess where I
would want your input.
Mr. White. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Really there are a couple of issues. There is a financial
cost, and certainly if you use what I consider a conservative
number by EPA, we are talking $28 an acre for corn. Less
analysis has been done by the agency for grain sorghum and
sugarcane.
But beyond then when you look at the fact that atrazine is
a produce that is used not necessarily very much today as a
primary herbicide but it is an additive herbicide to a lot of
the new technologies.
So it has not been unusual at all when different companies
introduce a new technology for controlling weeds, the next
thing they do is introduce a new formulation that includes some
atrazine in it, you know may be at a lower rate.
So it is not just about the cost. It is about being able to
control the weeds. It is about dealing with weed resistance
issues with some of the more popular technologies that are out
there.
But the bigger question really, if there is anything bigger
than atrazine and I have devoted a lot of my life the last 16
years to this issue, is the fact that with the 50 years of safe
use, with literally 6,000 plus studies being a part of the
database that has led EPA to arrive to the safety determination
they have today, if you cannot defend atrazine, what product is
it that we will be able to use?
What product is out there that has that body of science
today or will have in the future that the companies will invest
you know tens of billions of dollars to defend?
Quite frankly if this process goes the way it is going and
the award for stakeholders to step up and support it is to get
beat down by trial attorneys, how many are going to be willing
to do that in the future?
Chairman Lincoln. That is exactly right. Thank you.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairman. More especially
in regards to this panel I thank the panel for taking the time.
I know your time is very valuable.
Pesticides like atrazine are subject to regular review. In
fact, atrazine was re-registered in 2006, not scheduled for re-
review until 2013. That is under the banner of stability and
predictability. Always something could happen why you could
have a special advisory, pardon me, a Scientific Advisory Panel
meeting.
But in October of last year, EPA scheduled an unprecedented
four Scientific Advisory Panel meetings. Madam Chairman,
everything is an acronym here. Those are called SAPs. So there
were four SAPs within 11 months.
Since 2000, EPA reviews have included more than 16
opportunities for public comment including six SAP meetings
convened under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenicide Act, FIFRA.
I hate to admit this but I was a staffer for my predecessor
in the House when FIFRA was first passed and he assigned me to
go cover it one time because our agricultural assistant was
sick.
I attended the meeting. I had no idea what they were
talking about and came back and told the congressmen, Keith
Sebelius of the big First District of Kansas, do not ever
assign me to that again, only to be assigned when I became a
member of Congress to the subcommittee dealing with FIFRA and
dealing with George Brown of California at that time who knew
more about it than anybody, and I was ranking member.
Chairman Lincoln. You were sapped there.
Senator Roberts. Yes. This SAP suddenly became known as Mr.
FIFRA, and people there can testify that is the case, Mr. Vroom
especially.
And it is amazing what you can get acquainted with if you
just have good staff that print things in large letters on
cards and get you to read them.
Here is what the situation is with Jere White, who is a
great friend and takes his time and effort to represent the
Kansas Corn Growers.
You stated now in your oral and written testimony that you
have recently been served a subpoena and you believe it to be
because, as a leader of the Kansas Corn Growers Association,
Kansas Corn Commission, and the Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers
Association, you have been an active participant in promoting
the beneficial uses of atrazine.
The Chairman just asked you the question. You just
responded. You are here in Washington today at your expense.
Because you testified before the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel
on atrazine, the plaintiff's attorney from Holiday Shores
Sanitary Distinct in the State of Illinois court case has asked
for you to provide all correspondence, memoranda, notes,
studies, and surveys to and from Jere White, Kansas Corn and
Kansas Grain Sorghum Commission with regard to atrazine.
I got this subpoena. I mean I did not get the subpoena but
we may if this continues. I do not know the difference between
appearing before a Scientific Advisory Panel then having some
trial lawyer send you a subpoena from another state, a man who
farms in one state then gets a subpoena from somebody from
another state simply because he has the courage and the
leadership to head up a farmer organization that stood before a
Scientific Advisory Panel, what the heck is the difference
between that and coming to the Congress to testify.
Maybe you are going to get a subpoena because you came here
and testified before us. Maybe the Chairman and I will get a
subpoena. That is something to think about. I had not really
thought about that until right now.
Then if you look at this, Madam Chairman. Let me get back
to this. This is what he is supposed to be deposed on in two
separate places at the same time. I do not think they are going
to go to the Ukraine. They might. This is more reflective of
the Soviet Union than it is I think America.
All correspondence to and from the relative parties, Kansas
Corn Growers Association, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All
e-mails from copying, blind copying, so on and so forth, a
blind copying. Sending blind copies. If they are blind, how
can--no, never mind.
All internal memoranda and notes concerning atrazine. All
studies relating to atrazine, conducted, authorized, sponsored
or supervised by the Kansas Corn Growers; all raw data of
atrazine studies, all notes, reports, analysis or other
documents, any source of information, other documents relied
upon, any surveys received from corn growers and/or farmers.
Jere, hello, how you doing, e-mails. What are you doing on
the atrazine thing, well, let me tell you what is happening on
my farm. Sorry, got to put that in there.
All reports, articles, other documents written by the
Kansas Corn Growers, any source information or other documents,
all documents related to presentation here today, all documents
related to persons present in any presentation.
I guess I am going to have to submit something. Any
documents evidencing monetary contributions or compensation.
Oh. Any documents relating to training, how you going to get
anything, in contribution, well, never mind. I am not going to
get into that.
Any documents relating to training offered to Kansas Corn
Growers Association, all phone logs, notes, other documents
reflecting phone conversations, all calendar entries, reports.
This just goes on and on and on even to the point if he
talks to his secretary that could be deposed. My question is.
You have given your life to the Kansas Corn Growers and you
have got a great farming operation.
If we are going to get into anything under the jurisdiction
of FIFRA where somebody stands before a Scientific Advisory
Panel and gives their point of view or this Committee or any
other public place, how does this interaction and judicial
activism affect those who may want to serve on farmer or
commodity organizations, wheat growers, corn growers, cotton
growers, sorghum growers, livestock association, pork
producers?
It seems to me this has a terrible chilling affect and some
of it comes back to the fact that the EPA decided to have six
SAPs in god knows how many days, giving them the opportunity
then to say, okay, here is a straw man out here, pardon me, a
corn man out here, a corn husk out here, that they can go
after.
I do not know how anybody wants to serve in a capacity of
leadership within any farm organization if that is the case.
This is a very bad situation.
Mr. White. Well, Senator, they are certainly getting at our
right to associate. I think it is a fundamental principle of
what trade associations do. You know they are even getting at
our right to associate within our office.
As we discussed earlier, many times things that we put out
for public consumption gets battered around just as it would in
your office. Not all the ideas that are floated certainly rise
to the top or sometimes you write back to your coworker what
are you thinking but a lot of times today we write. We do not
necessarily talk.
All those discussions are part of the subpoena. The
interaction with board members. It does. It gets at the very
core of what we are able to do as we develop our policies, our
positions, our thoughts, and I think it is intended to do that.
I truly do.
Can I say with certainty that I received these subpoenas
because I was at the SAP last week? No, I do not know the
thought process of the trial attorneys. But I can tell you that
the Holiday Shores Sanitary District has no reason to think
that I know anything about what goes on when they sell water to
people in Holiday Shores. And I do not.
But we are talking literally, I have been following the
atrazine saga since 1994. Within the State of Kansas, I have
been working on the atrazine issue since 1989. We are talking
tens of thousands of documents, thousands of e- mails. We are
talking things that are stuck away in the attic, in storage
sheds, and things like that.
A tremendous burden, and I know it is of no value.
Admittedly, the trial attorneys may say, well, we do not know
that. But again what right do they have to harass me. And the
only reason they know I exist is because of the activities that
you talked about.
I stuck my head up out of the weeds and welcome to our
world. I can tell you that you know if it is meant to
intimidate, it had the wrong impact on me. I originally was not
able to attend this hearing because of some conflicts. I did
everything I could to work them out to be here after getting
the subpoenas on Monday night. And if they are coming after me,
as we might say Kansas occasionally, they need to bring a lunch
because they are going to be at it a while.
Senator Roberts. Madam Chairman, I think we have one heck
of a problem on our hands or a challenge on our hands. This has
the effect, a chilling effect as it relates to anybody that
takes their time and effort to serve in leadership in behalf of
any farmer organization, any commodity group or for that matter
any group, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that these
three subpoenas be made part of the record if that is
appropriate.
Chairman Lincoln. Without objection.
[The information can be found on page 82 in the appendix.]
Senator Roberts. I thank you for having the hearing. Jere,
I am sorry you having to go through this and we will keep
meeting and see if we can find some answer to this because this
is simply not right and I appreciate your coming.
Mr. White. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Vroom. Madam Chairman, could I add something? I think
what Jere is working on with regard to bringing information
forward, scientific and benefits information about atrazine,
the same thing that is going on with regard to a number of
other older compounds which are also important, all of which
get regular review by EPA, and in the case of all of these like
atrazine, like carbofuran, endosulfan, aldicarb and the list
goes on.
We have seen risk mitigation over the years, certainly the
20 plus years that I have been with this association and yet
farmers still depend on these and yet now in the last few
months we have seen what we feel like are knee jerk and
unexpected kind of new process or the departure from regular
process procedures in threatening or forcing cancellation of
some of these products.
But also there is a chilling effect on our members who are
inventing the newer products to go along with the older
product. A great example is one of our members who has a methyl
bromide replacement product, methyl iodide. EPA registered it
several years ago and it is still waiting for regulatory
approval in California.
Extremist activist organizations have challenged that in
California and now have petitioned EPA to rethink their
registration of methyl iodide. So that has to make those member
companies of ours who are investing $20-, $30 million a month,
and usually it is upwards of $300 million cost before they ever
get a new product to market, to wonder is it really worth the
price of continuing to take the risk to innovate.
So there is a chilling effect everywhere you look, and it
is because we have lost our way with regard to regular order,
the rule of law, science and transparency which the
Administrator has said she supports and is committed to, and I
believe with your help she will return to.
Chairman Lincoln. There is no doubt that transparency and
you know science-based evidence and science-based research is
critical to what we need to see happen here. I think you are
right that we just need to make sure we are continuing to move
forward and to encourage that in a common sense way and to also
ask everybody to be at the table when things are being decided.
I think several things have come out of this and I am
certainly appreciative to this panel and all of our witnesses
today. One of the most important is that if we do not like
importing oil we are really not going to like importing our
food.
And we have a lot of really hard working farm families and
ranchers across the State, across this country that do a great
job, and I think that you know so many of the other things that
we have seen, whether it is what we can use, what the tools are
that our agricultural producers have that allow them to be
competitive and to continue to do what they do, taking those
tools away from them not only unfortunately may shift us into
requiring our dependence on imported food but it is importing
food from countries that grow crops and products with the very
things that we are outlawing now.
So I think it is so important for us to work through these
issues and I will look forward to working with all of you all
as well as the EPA Administrator and others and certainly my
colleagues to come up with some of these solutions so we can
keep those hard-working farm families doing what we need to do
best.
So thank you all for being with us today.
The record will remain open for five business days for
members who could not attend to submit their questions in
writing and that would mean that the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 23, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.035
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 23, 2010
======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.043
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 23, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66276.061