    [Senate Hearing 115-198]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-198

                      THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
                      REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON AMERICAN
                        FARMING AND RANCHING COMMUNITIES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 7, 2018

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    29-478 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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 ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                FEBRUARY 7, 2018
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Hansen, Niels, Secretary-Treasurer, Public Lands Council, and
      member, National Cattlemen's Association.......................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Duvall, Zippy, President, American Farm Bureau Federation........    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Hill, Howard, Director of Veterinary Services and Multiplication
      Iowa, and Past President, National Pork Producers Council......    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Response to an additional question from Senator Booker.......    65
    Scuse, Michael, Secretary of Agriculture, State of Delaware......    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    74
            Senator Markey...........................................    75
    Teske, Donn, Vice President, National Farmers Union..............    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    86
            Senator Markey...........................................    87

        THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON
                   AMERICAN FARMING AND RANCHING COMMUNITIES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Shelby,
    Cardin, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Van
    Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        Today we will hold a hearing on the impact of Federal
    environmental regulations and policies on American farming and
    ranching communities.
        The discussion here today is not about the value of
    environmental regulations, but about how some Federal
    regulations can be inflexible, antiquated, duplicative, and
    ultimately harmful to American agriculture, a critical part of
    our nation's economy.
        Members of this Committee should work to ensure
    environmental laws are strong and effective, without being
    overly burdensome. This is often a difficult task.
        The United States is blessed with diverse ecosystems that
    often require different kinds of stewardship to remain healthy.
    In Wyoming, we have an abundance of sagebrush prairie,
    coniferous forests, a variety of mountain habitats and
    wetlands. Wyoming ranchers and farmers are familiar with each
    ecosystem and its needs. This is where they work, live, and
    invest their energies.
        Farmers and ranchers are the original stewards; they
    understand that landscapes and watersheds need to be healthy to
    support native plants, wildlife, crops, and livestock. They are
    living proof that interacting with nature can be done in an
    environmentally sound way, often leaving the resources in
    better condition than they found them.
        Washington policies do not always translate well in rural
    America. When I am home in Wyoming I often hear how out of
    touch environmental regulations have become. For far too long
    the people who feed, clothe, and house our nation have been
    burdened by policies that fail to reflect on the ground
    realities.
        We can look no further than the Obama administration's
    failed Waters of the United States rule. Under that rule,
    farmers and ranchers across the country were told that
    irrigation ditches, ponds, and puddles were ``navigable
    waters'' and could be regulated by the Federal Government.
        I am happy to say that, last week, the delay in
    implementation of the WOTUS rule became final, giving the EPA
    and the Army Corps of Engineers time to make sure that any new
    rule protects America's water resources, while not
    unnecessarily burdening farmers, ranchers, small businesses,
    and communities across America.
        When writing legislation, Congress must take care to ensure
    policy actually achieves the desired objective. Agencies must
    do the same when developing regulations. I believe that we
    should prioritize updating and revising policies that, while
    well intentioned, were not designed to micromanage agriculture
    production.
        One example is the new animal waste emission reporting
    requirements. Over the past several months farmers and ranchers
    struggled to comply with ambiguities and an ambiguous agency
    directive following an April 2017 decision in the D.C. Circuit
    Court. That decision fundamentally changed reporting
    requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and
    Community Right-to-Know Act, collectively known as CERCLA and
    EPCRA.
        The ruling meant up to 100,000 farmers and ranchers, who
    have never been required to report under these laws, were
    suddenly required to comply. Even though they wanted to comply
    with the ruling, the process and the implications of compliance
    were unclear. Because both CERCLA and EPCRA were not written
    with the intent of regulating these farms and ranches, the
    requirement to report emissions from animal waste came without
    context and largely without any agency guidance.
        Let me now turn to NEPA, the National Environmental Policy
    Act. We cannot discuss environmental regulations and their
    impact on agriculture operations without mentioning NEPA. NEPA
    is at the core of every decision in each land use plan,
    resource management proposal, trailing and crossing permit, and
    grazing allotment that farmers and ranchers need.
        NEPA is not limited to agriculture. For years we have
    discussed the effect NEPA has had on delaying the construction
    of roads, bridges, parks, reservoirs, and other critical
    infrastructure.
        While environmental analysis can be important in many
    cases, completing NEPA takes far too long. As NEPA delays
    stifle improvements around the farm or ranch areas, calves and
    lambs grow and are sold, ecosystems need change, and farmers,
    ranchers, and their families wait for an answer. As we will
    hear from today's witnesses, these are families whose lives,
    livelihoods, hopes, and dreams are inseparable from the lands
    and the waters that they work so hard to keep clean.
        These are not the only examples of punishing regulations
    that farmers and ranchers and the communities they live in
    face. Today we will also hear about duplicative permitting
    requirements of the application of pesticides already covered
    under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
    or FIFRA; issues of privacy and the collection of data on
    farmers and ranchers; on how the Endangered Species Act has
    been implemented and the subsequent negative impact on farming
    and ranching operations.
        These and other examples will be discussed so we, as a
    Committee, can better understand how we can help these hard
    working communities across our country.
        Before we move on to our witnesses today, I would like to
    turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Carper, for his remarks.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much for
    bringing us all together today.
        And a special thanks to our witnesses. I feel privileged to
    be able to introduce Michael Scuse, our Secretary of
    Agriculture for a second tour, in a moment.
        But first let me give a brief statement, then I would like
    to introduce Michael.
        No other sector of our nation's economy's success is more
    closely tied with the quality of our environment than is the
    agriculture sector. Farmers are our nation's original
    conservationists. They understand better than anyone else the
    need for clean air, for clean water, and high quality soil in
    order to produce the food that we need not just to feed
    ourselves, but really to feed the world.
        In Delaware over 40 percent of our land is dedicated to
    farming, and our State's agriculture sector employs some 30,000
    Delawareans, while contributing nearly $8 billion a year to our
    State's economy. I am proud to say that First State farmers are
    first in the nation for the value of product produced per acre,
    first in the number of lima beans harvested, and I think in
    Sussex County, which is the third largest county in America,
    first in production of broilers--chickens--by county. We do all
    this while practicing exceptional environmental stewardship
    while our farming community is working closely in partnership
    with USDA, with State agencies, and our universities.
        Our nation's environmental laws have been instrumental in
    helping us deliver clean air, clean water, and productive lands
    for our farmers and our ranchers. I should add to that list our
    foresters, our fishing communities, because their success is
    also greatly dependent on a healthy environment and vital
    ecosystems.
        For example, EPA has found that the 2005 Clean Air Act
    rules that protect our lungs from ground smog also protect our
    crops and animals, to the tune of $13 billion in estimated
    benefits by 2020. The Clean Air Act also protects crops from
    damaging ultraviolet radiation by protecting the planet's ozone
    layer and limiting the use of ozone depleting chemicals. In
    fact, it turns out that those Clean Air Act protections will
    prevent an estimated 7.5 percent drop in future crop yields in
    2075.
        There are other environmental issues where we need to act
    and do more to help our farmers. For example, climate change is
    already disrupting the livelihood of farmers and ranchers. The
    Federal Government's Third National Climate Assessment found
    that ``Climate disruptions to agricultural production have
    increased in the past 40 years and are projected to increase
    over the next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these
    impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and
    livestock.''
        The Climate Science Special Report released in November
    2017 confirmed these trends. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony of our witnesses on this topic.
        Other environmental programs have created new income
    opportunities for farmers. The Renewable Fuel Standard has been
    a major economic driver in farm communities across our country.
    In addition, tens of thousands of farmers across our country
    are enrolled in USDA's conservation programs that pay farmers
    for the water quality and habitat conservation services they
    provide and protect.
        I acknowledge, though, that sometimes environmental
    requirements can be complex. The Chairman has referred to this
    already. But those requirements can be confusing to those who
    farm. One such example is the air emissions reporting
    requirement for farms under two laws, the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known
    as CERCLA, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
    Know, known as EPCRA.
        In 2008 the Bush administration promulgated a rule that
    exempted all but the largest farms from reporting under these
    laws. In 2017 the D.C. Circuit Court overturned the 2008 rule,
    putting farmers on notice that they would soon need to begin
    reporting. Unfortunately, EPA's reporting guidance to farmers
    for this reporting has been confusing, and it has been
    unhelpful.
        Along with a number of other colleagues here in this room
    and outside this room, I have been pushing EPA for several
    months to do better. EPA agreed it had more work to do, and at
    our urging agreed to request more time from the court to
    continue developing a workable guidance and if necessary to
    give Congress the time to act on this issue. Thankfully, the
    court agreed, and last week, as we know, gave EPA until May 1st
    to get this right.
        With the 2008 rule no longer in place, I am committed to
    working toward a solution that balances the burden of this
    reporting on our farmers with the legitimate needs of public
    health and emergency response officials, and the right of local
    community members to know about the pollution in their air.
    This is what the Bush administration sought to do in 2008, and
    it is how I believe we should proceed now.
        If I could, Mr. Chairman, just do a quick word of
    introduction on Michael Scuse, who is joining us today. I am
    tempted just to read his bio; it is incredible. I won't do
    that, but really an incredible record of service and
    achievement.
        The Scuse family is highly regarded in our State. We have
    three counties. Smyrna is in the middle of our State, just
    north of Dover. The Scuse family has farmed there forever and
    has enjoyed great success and really been a role model for a
    lot of folks in farming and outside of farming.
        I mentioned in my statement that farmers were our first
    original conservationists. The Scuse family is a great example
    of that.
        In addition to serving through the work that he has done
    with his own family business, he has served as our Secretary of
    Agriculture not once, for 8 years-- almost 8 years--under
    Governor Ruth Ann Minner, but he also served as her chief of
    staff for a period of time, and in the current administration
    of Governor John Carney he is again our Secretary of
    Agriculture, and we are delighted that he is.
        In addition to that, he was asked, in the Obama
    administration, to come down here and to serve in Washington in
    a number of senior leadership positions, including
    Undersecretary at the Department of Ag, Acting Deputy Secretary
    of Agriculture, Acting Secretary of Agriculture for our
    country. Just extraordinary, and I am just thrilled that he
    could be here today. He is a good friend, someone that we are
    just honored to say that he is a Delawarean.
        We are honored that you are here today with us, Michael,
    and I salute you for all that you have done and continue to do.
    Thank you for joining us.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Before we head to the panel, we have a number of
    introductions to be made. Senator Ernst and Senator Moran have
    introductions.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Today I have the great honor of introducing a fellow Iowan,
    Dr. Howard Hill, a hog farmer from Cambridge, who serves as
    President of the National Pork Producers Council and is a
    veterinarian with Iowa Select Farms.
        Previously Dr. Hill was Director of Veterinary Services and
    Multiplication for Murphy Family Farms in Rose Hill, North
    Carolina, and was head of Veterinary Microbiology in the Iowa
    State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.
        Dr. Hill served as President of NPPC for the 2014-2015
    term, and prior to that was a member of the NPPC Board of
    Directors, serving on a number of committees and co-chairing
    the Environmental Policy Committee. He also served on the Board
    of Directors of the Iowa Pork Producers, where he was the
    Chairman of the Research Committee and the Contract Growers
    Committee.
        Dr. Hill owns a sow farrow to finish farm, which produces
    breeding stock for DanBred USA. He also partners with his son
    on the family farm, where they have a pure bred Angus herd and
    2,500 acres of row crops.
        Thank you for being here today, Dr. Hill. We look forward
    to hearing your testimony.
        Thank you so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
        Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Thank you to you and the Ranking Member for having our
    hearing, and it is an honor for me to introduce to the
    Committee Donn Teske, a Kansas farmer from Wheaton, Kansas, in
    the north-central part of our State. Donn has been actively
    engaged in the National Farmers Union and the Kansas Farmers
    Union for a very long time. He is a leader in agriculture and
    rural America, and I hold Donn in high regard for his love for
    and passion for small towns across our State. He recognizes
    fully, as most of us do, that if rural America is going to have
    a future, it is because farmers and ranchers are having
    success.
        I appreciate him, and especially here on the conservation
    issue. He has a great love for the land and understands how
    important clear skies and good soil and clean water are to
    Kansans across our State.
        So, Donn, I welcome you to the Committee, and I thank you
    for your testimony; I look forward to hearing it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Moran.
        We also have joining the panel Mr. Zippy Duvall, who is the
    President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, but first we
    are going to hear from Mr. Niels Hansen.
        Niels joins us today from Rawlins, Wyoming. He is the
    immediate past President of the Wyoming Stock Growers
    Association, currently serves as the Secretary and Treasurer
    for the Public Lands Council. As a third generation rancher,
    Niels knows that raising cattle, sheep, and horses is full of
    challenges. Over the years Niels has worked with the University
    of Wyoming and the Bureau of Land Management to develop
    cooperative range land monitoring, which has allowed Niels to
    become intimately familiar with both the needs of his livestock
    and the needs of range land ecosystems.
        His successful stewardship is evident in the longevity and
    success of his family ranch, which has also been recognized for
    many years in Wyoming and nationally. The Bureau of Land
    Management recognized Niels's ranch with the BLM Range Land
    Management Stewardship Award in 2000, and in 2001 the ranch was
    named the Little Snake River Conservation District Cooperator
    of the Year.
        Niels has been recognized repeatedly for his leadership in
    the industry and in his community. He has served as a member of
    the Rawlins Search and Rescue, and was inducted into the
    Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame in 2011.
        Niels, I am pleased to have you with us here today to lend
    your wealth of experience to the Committee. I ask that you
    please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF NIELS HANSEN, SECRETARY-TREASURER, PUBLIC LANDS
         COUNCIL, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, members of the Committee. Thank you for having me here
    today to address how the Federal regulations affect my ranch
    and others across the country.
        My name is Niels Hansen. My family has been ranching in our
    area for 120 years. Today, my son is home taking care of the
    ranch so that I can be with you today to discuss these issues.
        As stated, I am the past President of the Wyoming Stock
    Growers Association, past Chairman of the Wyoming State Grazing
    Board, a member of the National Cattlemen's Association, and I
    currently serve as Secretary-Treasurer for the National Public
    Lands Council.
        Our ranch covers 230,000 acres of ground in central
    Wyoming; consists of private and BLM in the checkerboard land
    pattern. We span over three watersheds.
        Beyond ranching, I spent much of the last 30 years working
    on these issues that we are discussing today in Wyoming, in
    Washington, DC, and across the West. As recently as last week,
    at the National Cattlemen's Convention, I taught a class on
    working with Federal agencies and trying to educate people how
    to get along and work toward a goal.
        In our interactions with the Federal agencies, our first
    priority is always to identify common ground and to work
    together. But we are constantly tangled in a web of Federal
    regulations. I am here today to talk about just a few of those
    regulations that impact my ranch and my family.
        As long as it remains on the books, the Obama era WOTUS
    rule continues to be a serious threat to our operation. On our
    ranch, we wrestle with the management of three watersheds. None
    of them drain directly into adjacent Federal waters, but under
    the ambiguous and overreaching 2015 rule, it is impossible to
    know whether we are exempt or not. As a family rancher, I
    should not need to hire hydrologists, engineers, and attorneys
    to figure this out.
        I am grateful the Administration has taken steps to roll
    back this rule and replace it with something more workable, but
    more work still needs to be done. The ranching community stands
    ready to help in any way we can.
        Another regulation I shouldn't be wrestling with in our
    cow-calf operation is the reporting requirements under CERCLA
    and EPCRA. The simple fact is emissions from normal livestock
    operations should not be covered under this rule. In
    particular, it is absurd to require such reporting for a 3,000-
    head operation like mine spread across 60 square miles. Such an
    operation would never require a coordinated emergency response.
    Congress needs to fix this.
        As we all know, you can't discuss ranching anywhere in the
    country without taking into account wildlife management. Two
    pieces of legislation that make it very difficult for me are
    the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Act. However
    well intended, ESA is 40 years old. It needs to be updated to
    reflect lessons learned and the issues of today. The path
    forward must work for all, not just environmental litigants
    that pay their bills with proceeds from legal settlements. Our
    best opportunity to modernize ESA is through last year's
    bipartisan Western Governors' recommendations to this
    Committee.
        But only addressing ESA does not solve the whole problem.
    The Migratory Bird Act is working so well that populations of
    ravens are exploding on my ranch and around the West. This Act
    allows for proportionate response to growing populations that
    threaten both the sage grouse and our young livestock, but
    Federal agencies are slow to grant us necessary perdition
    authority and expanded baiting flexibility. For me, it is the
    ravens. In other parts of the country the cormorants, black
    vultures, and other predators are the issue.
        In conclusion, please recognize that the ranchers are your
    eyes and ears on the land. We are your best tool to achieve any
    real conservation objectives on the ground. Turn us loose. No
    one is more dedicated to the health of the land than those of
    us who are dependent on it. Let the ranchers do what we do
    best. Everyone will benefit--the species, the ecosystem, and
    the rural communities.
        Thank you again for hearing my testimony. I look forward to
    answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much for traveling
    here from Wyoming, and thanks for that excellent testimony. We
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Duvall.

                 STATEMENT OF ZIPPY DUVALL, PRESIDENT,
                    AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

        Mr. Duvall. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to come talk to you about real world impact on
    overregulation of farmers and ranchers.
        My name is Zippy Duvall, and I am a beef and poultry farmer
    in Georgia. My son is at home right now; he is fourth
    generation, and also providing large animal veterinary medicine
    in our community.
        I was elected President of the American Farm Bureau 2 years
    ago, and I visited farms in all 50 States since I have become
    President, and I talked to them about the things that keep them
    awake at night. The two issues that have come up at almost
    every farm that I have visited were the lack of adequate legal
    supply of labor and the burden of overregulation on their
    farms.
        Regulatory process today is a product of decades of
    administrative and judicial decisions without much effort to
    integrate these decisions into a system that makes sense to all
    of us. Farmers and ranchers have shared their stories about the
    impact of regulations on their lives and their farms as I visit
    them.
        In West Virginia, a poultry farmer who operates one of the
    cleanest farms that we have ever seen is spending tens of
    thousands of dollars on legal bills to defend their farm in
    court against EPA's misinterpretation of the Clean Water Act.
        Federal officers, without any authority from Congress and
    without public notice, have used what amounts to extortion
    against ranchers in Utah to force them to hand over their
    private water rights as a condition of getting Federal grazing
    permits.
        The Endangered Species Act has not been successful in
    recovering listed species; only 50 species have been recovered
    out of 1,661 species listed in the past 45 years. That is a 3
    percent success rate. Eleven species have gone extinct while
    under this Federal protection. Meanwhile, the ESA has made it
    harder for farmers and ranchers to use their land and protect
    their livestock.
        And last, but not least, the EPA, under provisions of the
    previous Administration, finalized the Waters of the U.S. rule
    that epitomizes the failure of our current regulatory system.
    The law that governs this process, the Administrative Procedure
    Act, is more than 70 years old and is way overdue for reform,
    especially when you consider how social media can shape public
    input.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have met farmers and ranchers who
    are not sure that they want to encourage their children to
    remain on the farm. And I remind you the average age of the
    American farmer is 58 years old. A generation of farmers and
    ranchers will be hanging up their hats within a few years, and
    we need to ask ourselves who is going to be willing to step up
    and take the place to grow the food for our tables in America
    and around the world.
        As committed as young people are, like my son, Zeb, who are
    farming and ranching, they cannot continue if the over-
    regulatory burdens continue to grow. Farm income is down about
    50 percent compared to 5 years ago, but I assure you the
    regulatory costs have not gone down any. These facts would give
    pause to even the most dedicated farmer and rancher around this
    country.
        I would like to close with a quote from a statesman from my
    home State, President Jimmy Carter. He signed an executive
    order in March 1978 that states, ``Regulations should not
    impose unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on
    public and private organizations, or on State and local
    governments. Regulations should be developed through a process
    which ensures that compliance costs, paperwork, and other
    burdens on the public are minimized.''
        And then there is President Trump's executive order of a
    year ago that requires agencies to repeal two rules for every
    one rule that they issue. And in signing that executive order,
    the President said, ``Every regulation should have to pass a
    simple test: Does this make life better or safer for American
    workers and consumers?''
        This is not a partisan issue. This is about allowing our
    farmers and businesses to be productive. It is about a goal
    that I believe we all share, a regulatory process that is
    credible, one that we can get behind, instead of having to
    fight against.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to answer any
    questions that you and your colleagues have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Duvall follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Duvall, for your
    testimony.
        Dr. Hill.

     STATEMENT OF HOWARD HILL, DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY SERVICES AND
        MULTIPLICATION IOWA, AND PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PORK
                           PRODUCERS COUNCIL

        Mr. Hill. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, and members of the Committee. I would also like to give
    a special thanks to my home State Senator, Joni Ernst, who has
    done a tremendous amount of work for Iowa farmers.
        My name is Dr. Howard Hill. I am a veterinarian and pork
    producer from Cambridge, Iowa, and past President of the
    National Pork Producers Council, on whose behalf I am
    testifying today.
        Pork producers are deeply committed to responsibly managing
    their animals and the manure they produce to protect water and
    air quality, and to maximize the manure's benefit and value as
    a vital source of nutrients for crops we grow. NPPC and pork
    producers have a long and proud history of working
    cooperatively with environmental regulators at the State and
    Federal levels, and are supportive of Federal environmental
    policies and programs if they are grounded in three primary
    principles: one, the environmental performance expectations for
    producers have a high probability of resulting in meaningful
    environmental improvements; two, the measures involved are
    practical and affordable; and three, producers are given a
    realistic amount of time to adopt the measures and associated
    systems to their operations so they can continue to be
    profitable and successful.
        NPPC has worked with EPA on numerous occasions to ensure
    the Agency's rules meet those principles and that they
    ultimately protect the environment. One of the best examples of
    our cooperative effort was the National Air Emissions
    Monitoring Study of the emissions of swine operations. Pork
    producers used about $6 million of their own funds to support
    that EPA-supervised third-party study and approximately 5,000
    swine facilities enrolled with EPA in air consent agreements
    that made the work possible.
        But when necessary, NPPC will fight bad environmental
    policies and programs. Pork producers do not oppose
    environmental regulations, but they will oppose rules that are
    not sound, effective, and practical. An example of the latter
    is the requirement to report air emission releases under CERCLA
    and EPCRA. Almost all livestock farmers are now required to
    report ammonia emissions that result from natural breakdown of
    animal waste.
        When EPA first issued the rules on those reports in 2008,
    all the livestock farmers were exempt from CERCLA reporting,
    and all but the largest operations were exempt from EPCRA
    because producers and EPA never believed that routine
    agriculture emissions from manure constituted the type of
    emergency or crisis that CERCLA or EPCRA were intended to
    address. Animal agriculture also never understood how the
    reporting of farm emissions to the U.S. Coast Guard under
    CERCLA would have supported the legitimate emergency response
    purpose of those regulations.
        The reports that were required under EPCRA had to be made
    to State and local emergency response authorities in January
    2009. At the time, EPA completely dropped the ball. The Agency
    failed to provide any guidance to farmers on how to report
    emissions, and it failed to provide guidance to the State and
    local agencies that were going to receive those reports, and as
    a result, chaos ensued.
        Almost all producers trying to report emissions had
    difficulty reaching State and local emergency response
    authorities either because phone lines were overwhelmed or fax
    machines just ran out of paper. Those who did manage to get
    through and submit reports were met with disbelief and
    confusion. Statements such as ``Why are you submitting this to
    us?'' and ``What are we supposed to do with this information?''
    were common. In Illinois, for example, farmers were told there
    was no rule requiring reporting and that this was merely an
    Internet hoax. In the southeast, EPA told local authorities
    that their reports were supposed to be submitted to EPA's Water
    Office.
        In the wake of that chaos, NPPC and other agriculture
    groups, in early 2009, filed lawsuits challenging EPA's 2008
    rule. Last April the D.C. Circuit finally ruled in this case,
    throwing out the agricultural exemption from the two reporting
    rules and forcing tens of thousands of livestock farmers to
    figure out how to estimate and report their emissions. The
    latest industry estimate of the number of animal producers now
    subject to reporting requirements is over 200,000.
        While the pork industry is certainly prepared to comply
    with CERCLA and EPCRA once the appeals court mandates take
    effect, it should be noted that EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
    State and local emergency response authorities have all gone on
    record saying not only is there no need for this information,
    but that its volume will create a major management challenge
    for them and that it will interfere with their other legitimate
    emergency functions. It is for this reason that NPPC is
    supporting a legislative fix to address the requirements in
    CERCLA, and if possible, EPCRA, and we urge members of this
    Committee to do likewise.
        To conclude, pork producers are proud of their
    environmental efforts over the past 50 years, a period that has
    seen the amount of pork produced double, while the use of feed,
    water, and land has been reduced significantly, and our carbon
    footprint has decreased by 35 percent. NPPC and the U.S. pork
    industry stand ready to work with Congress, Federal and State
    agencies, and anyone who is willing to work with us to help
    producers improve our environmental stewardship efforts and to
    address new challenges. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Dr. Hill.
        Secretary Scuse.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCUSE,
              SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF DELAWARE

        Mr. Scuse. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking
    Member Carper, members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    invitation to speak to you today about the impacts of Federal
    regulations and policies on American farming and ranching
    communities.
        Delaware has benefited from many of the environmental
    policies and regulations that have come from our Federal
    partners. We are able to see examples on a daily basis that are
    benefiting not only our family farms, but also the State and
    our efforts to improve the overall environment.
        Middletown, Delaware, once a large farming community,
    continues to have good neighborly relations today. While our
    understanding of agriculture might not be the same as the
    original farm community, Middletown citizens have embraced
    agriculture through education and advocacy from the local
    agriscience programs, cooperative extension, as well as farm
    groups.
        As you can imagine, the influx of additional residents has
    increased the usage of water resources, while farmers still
    need to irrigate their crops. Through the town's wastewater
    treatment plant, wastewater is recycled and used to spray
    irrigation on those neighboring farms, as part of the
    Chesapeake Watershed, making sure runoff does not occur; it is
    extremely important.
        Delaware farmers are able to utilize a variety of
    conservation practices supported by research. The moneys that
    are provided for conservation districts and supplemented by
    USDA NRCS have been extremely important in enhancing and
    supporting the usage of cover crops. These crops not only can
    reduce the amount of soil loss from wind and water erosion, but
    can also scavenge residual nutrients and release them during
    the next growing season.
        EPA has helped generate funds to support one of the best
    nutrient management programs in the country, thanks to now
    Senator Carper, then-Governor Carper. With a talented staff
    dedicated to helping farmers and protecting the environment, we
    have been able to update our compliance standards, meeting the
    regulations set forth by EPA. We have been able to fund
    collaborations with third-party specialists, like Tetra Tech,
    to develop modeling and enhanced data to support our new
    compliance standards.
        The Renewable Fuel Standard has increased demand for corn.
    In 2000 American farmers produced 10 billion bushels of corn.
    By 2016 farmers were producing 14.6 billion bushels of corn to
    meet the demand. Many people look at the Renewable Fuel
    Standard creating a demand for corn dedicated to ethanol that
    improves our air quality and lessens our demand on non-
    renewable resources, but it also created additional feed
    markets.
        Poultry litter relocation programs have spawned a growing
    industry between poultry farms without acreage to utilize those
    in need of fertility. It has offered an alternative option to
    farmers who have phosphorous overload and cannot apply poultry
    litter to their fields. The program has also created compost
    products and pilot energy generation projects.
        In Delaware, we have noted climate changes, including
    patterns of increased temperate with risk of drought and
    extreme rainfall events. In addition to the obvious effects of
    increasingly frequent drought conditions, climate change is
    also predicted to result in higher frequency and intense
    rainstorms. Increasing intervals of intense storms presents a
    risk for agriculture BMP practices that are designed for
    trapping and treating capacity for storm water or combined
    water flows from agricultural areas. These intense rainfall
    events will impact crops as the timing of these intense
    rainfalls could result in crop failures, such as when the crop
    has not yet emerged in the early development, and thus much
    more susceptible to flooding.
        In some cases, rainfall can also destroy older crops,
    particularly fruits and vegetables, like watermelons and
    cantaloupes, that have substantial input cost. Likewise, warmer
    winter temperatures can lead to fruit trees setting earlier
    blossoms, which increases the chance of frost-freeze damage, as
    was witnessed in the Mid-Atlantic in the spring of 2016.
        Last, as the climate warms/changes, there is the chance
    that certain agricultural and forest pests may expand their
    ranges. For instance, some pest ranges may have been limited by
    cold temperatures. But as that maximum low temperature for an
    area rises, then that pest now is able to expand its range and
    survive where it previously could not.
        The Delaware Agriculture Department is partnering with USDA
    NRCS on agriculture conservation through programs like the
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program, that help with cover
    crops and practices that improve our environment and the
    Agriculture Conservation Easement Program, or Ag Land
    Easements, that benefit Delaware's Farmland Preservation
    program. But there is a need for streamlining efforts. The
    ACEP-ALE was instituted, replacing an older program, and it
    took us 3 years of negotiation until terms were agreed upon. In
    those 3 years Delaware lost its funding.
        The uncertainty and continuation of deadline extension
    surrounding CERCLA has caused confusion for producers and
    States, and there is a need for a legislative fix. We cannot
    keep putting farmers on notice, wondering when they will be hit
    with legal liability for untimely or inaccurate reporting.
        Farmers and ranchers value and understand the need to
    protect waters of the U.S. The Department of Agriculture and
    the States are willing to put the effort to assist farmers, but
    we would appreciate a common sense approach to address the
    issues, as well as timely outreach and education materials to
    WOTUS. We need a clear definition that is objective.
        Finally, an additional option to improving the
    environmental conditions would be to remove environmentally
    sensitive tillage acreage from consideration, changing the CRP
    program acreage from 24 million to 30 million acres.
        Ladies and gentlemen, our farmers and ranchers are in fact
    the first true environmentalists, and I want to thank you for
    the opportunity for being here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Scuse follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Teske.

               STATEMENT OF DONN TESKE, VICE PRESIDENT,
                         NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

        Mr. Teske. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, for this opportunity to visit today.
        And especially thank you, Senator Moran, for that more than
    gracious introduction. I have had the honor of considering the
    Senator a friend for many, many years, and the bad thing about
    that is he learns all the dirt on me, so this makes me a little
    nervous.
        My wife, Cathy, and I farm a farm operation in Wheaton,
    Kansas, in Pottawatomie, on the eastern edge of the Flint
    Hills. It is ranching and cropping. We farm it along with our
    children and grandchildren, and we got a slug of grandchildren.
    Grandchildren are fun. I am the fifth generation on the farm.
    God willing, our children will be the sixth and grandchildren
    seventh, and my goal here today is to work together to try and
    figure out how to give them a world they can prosper and thrive
    in.
        I currently serve as Vice President of the National Farmers
    Union. I am not quite sure how that ever worked out, but when I
    was contacted to visit with you today, my initial thoughts were
    to decline the invitation; I thought it would be too
    controversial and didn't think I was any expert to talk about
    it. Upon further contemplation, I kind of suspected that most
    of the testimony would be pretty aggressively antagonistic, and
    I see that was right.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Teske. And I thought maybe my experiences with the EPA
    and some of my thoughts could bring some perspective to it all.
    So, this is a good discussion to have.
        Most of us in this room are of the age to remember when the
    rivers were burning in our cities. We fixed them. It didn't
    break us. Our goal through this is to create a world for our
    grandchildren that they can thrive and prosper in, and it is
    our responsibility. This isn't something to push off on our
    children. And it is too late for our ancestors.
        So, somehow, we have to figure out how to work together to
    protect our environment and to allow our farmers to farm
    profitably. And we can do that. But throwing the baby out with
    the bath water by eliminating all regulations is just
    irresponsible. So, we need to work together and think how to do
    this.
        I already have Rob's ulcer acting up. I am rambling away
    from the script, but he will have to put up with that.
        My next thing I wanted to talk about was WOTUS. When WOTUS
    was introduced, it created a vicious backlash, and probably
    rightly so. It wasn't prepared right; it wasn't introduced
    right. Administrator Jackson appointed me to a Farmer Rancher
    Advisory Committee to the EPA, and then later on, Administrator
    McCarthy reappointed me to that, and it is called--and I have
    to read it off. I have a button, and I can't even remember how
    to say it.
        It is the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal
    Advisory Committee. So, anyhow, that is actually a pretty good
    deal. I consider it a conduit between rural America and the
    wonks in the EPA, and that is a good thing. We were never
    brought into this discussion as WOTUS was developed or
    introduced, and I wonder how a farmer relationship in there
    might have changed that and how it might have been perceived.
        Another grumbling point along that is the fact that in over
    a year, we have not had a phone call or an e-mail, so it
    shouldn't really matter what Administration is in charge. I
    think the communication between rural America and EPA would be
    a good thing. Why has that ceased to happen?
        I need to hurry up, or I won't cover the top parts.
        In the 1990s I worked for the Kansas Rural Center's Clean
    Water Farms Project. This is a win-win thing. This was EPA 319
    Funds, and I worked with farmers across the State of Kansas
    improving their water quality. They get a stipend grant to help
    them toward that. We hosted tours on it to show their neighbors
    what they were doing. It was all just great. And this is an
    example of how good things can happen as you do this.
        Another great thing was Farmer's Union's Carbon Credit
    Program. We were the nation's leader in carbon sequestration;
    it was modeled after the successful project of the Iowa Farm
    Bureau. We had over 5 million acres enrolled in carbon
    sequestration practices, and they got paid a stipend for that.
    These are good things.
        The Renewable Fuel Standard. I have 7 seconds to talk about
    it. Keep it; it is a good deal.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Teske. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Teske follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        Thank you, Senator Moran, for taking a picture of him as he
    just concludes that testimony. He can keep talking if you need
    to shoot him. Take three or four.
        Senator Moran. The Chairman never gives anyone more time.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Let me get started.
        Mr. Secretary, I noted that you gave positive remarks about
    the Renewable Fuel Standard, the RFS, in your testimony. I
    would just note that just last week your boss, the Governor of
    Delaware, petitioned the EPA to reduce the burdens of the
    Renewable Fuel Standard on refineries in Delaware and across
    the country. Your Governor actually stated that the RFS ``will
    undoubtedly severely harm the State of Delaware, the entire
    Middle Atlantic Region, and the national economy.''
        And I ask unanimous consent to enter that Governor's
    petition, from the Governor of Delaware, in the record.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Hansen, like many producers in the
    West, you have a great deal of experience in dealing with
    Federal agencies that administer grazing permits. You have also
    worked for decades with the agencies, the University of
    Wyoming, State experts to develop and to maintain coordinated
    ecosystem monitoring. You have seen the NEPA process in action
    countless times.
        Can you describe for me the differences that you have seen
    before Federal NEPA processing and the State process for things
    like range management improvements, economic, environmental, in
    terms of value of public lands?
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we were working
    with the State of Wyoming, probably the biggest issue that we
    deal with is water development, and we are generally looking at
    about a 6 month process to turn the permits around with the
    State of Wyoming. Depending on which watershed I am in, working
    with the BLM, I am guaranteed at least a year, probably 2,
    occasionally more. The paperwork and time involved is just
    ridiculous and very burdensome.
        Senator Barrasso. In your discussion with fellow ranchers
    in Wyoming, are you more or less confident in the economic
    direction of ranching and farming under this Administration
    versus dealing with the previous Administration?
        Mr. Hansen. Yes, very much so.
        Senator Barrasso. OK. And what do you think has changed to
    make things better for ranching and farming in Wyoming and in
    other States?
        Mr. Hansen. Definitely have a can-do attitude in the
    agencies. There is a desire to work with the people on the land
    again, back to what we had prior to the last Administration. We
    had people in the agencies that were reaching out and
    identifying issues that we could get together on. Prior to that
    it was a very negative environment, and the morale in the
    agencies was horrible; we were losing good people right and
    left.
        Senator Barrasso. I think at the end of the answer to your
    previous question you talked about how much time it takes to do
    some of this Federal paperwork. You know, in 2008, when the EPA
    provided an exemption to small farms and ranches from reporting
    animal waste emissions under the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response Compensation Liability Act, CERCLA, and EPCRA, the
    Agency determined that limiting the scope of reporting under
    those two laws would reduce the time burden on farms and
    ranches required to report. This was the estimation then of the
    EPA in 2008: 1,290,000 hours over a 10 year period.
        Now, the D.C. Circuit Court overturned that exemption, as
    you know, in April 2017, forcing farmers and ranchers to report
    all of these things.
        So, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hill, and Duvall, the producers that
    you represent, do they have the ability to spend this kind of
    time trying to comply with these laws?
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Chairman, the major problem, no, we don't
    have the time. But we don't have the tools. There is no way to
    do it on a range livestock operation. It is impossible.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Duvall.
        Mr. Duvall. Yes, sir. You know, when we start thinking
    about reporting--and I expected this question would probably
    come up because it is a big issue across farmland--there is an
    individual farm concern that we have, but I would like for the
    Committee to think about two other concerns, one being public
    safety concerns. You know, if we asked 200,000 farmers to
    report to the National Response Center, which they have to
    respond to, it would overwhelm them and draw resources away
    from actual emergencies.
        The second issue I would like for you to think about is a
    national security issue, because as our farmers start reporting
    their animals and what is being emitted there, then we are
    going to create a roadmap that anybody can find any farm
    anywhere where our food system is produced, and those people
    that lurk around our world trying to do harm to our country and
    to our people will have access to our food supply, and that is
    a very dangerous area to go into.
        And then I will talk about the individual farmer. The
    individual farmer will have to give up his personal
    information, where he lives, and that exposes him to being
    harassed by activists all around. And don't think that is not
    happening, because it does happen.
        Senator Barrasso. Dr. Hill, anything you would like to add
    to this?
        Mr. Hill. Yes. As my friend from Wyoming has said, they
    don't have the tools to do that, and the NAEMS Study was
    designed to help EPA develop those factors, which that program
    was done back in the early 2000s and still hasn't been
    completed. We would at least like to see those factors
    developed so that producers do have some way of estimating, and
    it would only be estimates of what their emissions are in case
    they do have to report it.
        The other thing is we don't consider farming and the
    emissions from a farm as an emergency; that is an everyday
    process. And we ask ourselves who wants this information, and
    in some cases it is the advocates that don't want livestock
    production, and they can misuse that information. In the case
    of Prestige Farms, who was trying to build a packing plant in
    Mason City, Iowa, they had reported back in earlier their
    emissions and 45 farms, and the activists brought that
    information and made the people in the community believe that
    those 45 reports were violations and got the people so aroused
    that they eventually voted down allowing that packing plant to
    occur.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. I was asked by Senator Booker to yield to
    him. I am happy to do that.
        Before I do that, I would just ask unanimous consent to
    submit for the record a document that demonstrates the robust
    benefit, as pointed out by Secretary Scuse, of the Renewable
    Fuel Standard in Delaware and also in other parts of our
    country.
        The issue that is before us here is East Coast refineries
    and how they are affected by the volatility, the lack of
    clarity--opaqueness--if you will, of RINs, and that is the
    issue that our Governor is raising. EPA could help us resolve
    this, and we have asked them to help us do that, to play a
    constructive role, and my hope is that they will.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Chairman Barrasso, and
    thank you for your generosity, Senator Carper.
        In 2016 residents from Duplin County, North Carolina, came
    to Washington, asking for help. Now, there are about 60,000
    people that actually live in this county in North Carolina, but
    there are more than 2 million pigs being raised there to
    produce pork. And the waste from 2 million pigs, as you
    probably know, Mr. Hill, is equivalent to the waste of about 20
    million people that would produce. And the primary way pig
    waste is being disposed of in Duplin County is by piping it
    into huge, open air manure lagoons and spraying the waste out
    onto open fields.
        These residents came to Washington complaining about
    suffering from very serious respiratory problems like asthma,
    higher rates of asthma, higher rates of eye irritation,
    depression, and numerous other health problems caused by living
    near these lagoons and the spray fields.
        I was so astonished by this; we don't really have these in
    New Jersey, that I actually went down to Duplin County to see,
    firsthand, what was going on. I saw the pig waste being
    sprayed; I watched it with my own eyes. I saw how it was
    misting off of the spray fields into the local community,
    carrying it onto adjacent properties, and the wretched smell,
    everywhere we went, around there in people's communities and
    their homes is something I won't forget.
        I met with local residents in a large group and heard their
    stories, painful stories about how the drinking water in their
    wells has been poisoned by runoff from the CAFOs and how they
    felt like prisoners in their own homes; how they couldn't run
    their air conditioners, couldn't open their windows.
        So, while I agree that we need to make sure our farmers do
    not have unnecessary Government regulations and red tape, I
    also know that something has to be done about these horrible
    conditions I saw that nobody would want their families to live
    in that is harming farmers and the communities they live in.
    And I really want to be clear here, because I do not think it
    should be contract farmers, who, too, are living in challenging
    conditions, often making very low wages at really rough
    margins. I don't think these folks, these good, hardworking
    Americans, some of the most hardworking people I have met, they
    should not have to solve this problem.
        It is the big, huge integrators who make billions of
    dollars in profits. One of the biggest companies down there is
    a Chinese owned company that in many ways, with the pork that
    is being shipped to their country, they are outsourcing these
    problems to us, while taking the benefit of our pork.
        So, Mr. Hill, my time is short, but this was one of the
    more painful things I have seen as an American. And it is a
    long answer to the question, I am sure, so just to respect my
    time, my limited time, could you please provide to me a written
    response for the record about what steps your industry is
    taking to reduce the harmful impact of the kind of CAFOs that I
    saw and they are having on real American people? Could you
    provide that answer for me in writing, sir?
        Mr. Hill. Possibly, we could do that. You know, we have the
    largest population of swine in Iowa, and we have used new
    technology to apply manure.
        Senator Booker. And sir, just for my own time--I apologize,
    I don't mean to interrupt you, but I have other questions.
    Could you just respond in writing? What I saw there, no human
    being should have to live in those conditions. The property
    values around those CAFOs have gone way down. People have been
    on that soil since the 1800s. Please just respond to me in
    writing, because I have some other questions I would like to
    ask you, Mr. Hill.
        Mr. Hill, some of these family farmers are right behind
    you, incredible Americans who I have come to just have a
    reverence for and respect. They are in the hearing room today,
    including some hog farmers amongst them. They have expressed
    serious concerns to me about a different problem, the Pork
    Checkoff Program, which they are required to pay into, but too
    often feel doesn't work to their interests.
        As you know, last week a Federal court found that payments
    of millions of dollars of checkoff funds from the Pork Board to
    your organization, the Pork Producers Council, were improper,
    and they said they must stop.
        Senator Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, and I have
    introduced a bipartisan bill that would make reforms to the
    Checkoff Program. So, do you agree that it would be beneficial
    to make those programs more transparent so that family farmers
    like the folks behind you, who are doing so much of the real
    work in America, can quickly see the budgets and expenditures
    that are approved by the USDA?
        And do you agree that it is good to have periodic
    independent audits of those checkoff programs so there is a
    fundamental fairness for, again, these small family farmers who
    are struggling so much? And do you agree that checkoff funds
    should only be used in ways that benefit all farmers paying
    into them, especially and including small family farmers that
    are here today?
        Mr. Hill. And they are. They are being used to the benefit
    of everybody. We export, now, 26 percent of all of our pork.
    That increases the value of every pig about $50. In 1993 we
    were a net importer of pork. So those funds are used for a lot
    of different things, but part of it is used for developing
    customers outside of the United States, which our industry
    depends on, which helps every producer that is raising pigs.
        Senator Booker. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but a
    judge has disagreed with the gentleman's answer, and you can
    see from the heads shaking back and forth no, there are a whole
    bunch of local farmers around this country who are not getting
    the benefit and feel really mistreated by this program. I think
    it is something that we and Senator Lee and I are trying to
    lead this, that we should reform and change.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, in my work on this Committee, and having chaired
    the Committee for a number of years, it is not difficult to
    understand and come to the conclusion that a lot of these
    costly and outrageous rules are about one thing and one thing
    only, and that is control, and primarily Federal control.
        I have looked at some of the regulations that this
    Administration has done away with, and I tie that directly to
    the success, economic success, the GDP that is coming in and
    jumping up from 1.5 percent a year to over 3 percent a year,
    and good things are happening.
        One of the regulations that I was trying to do away with,
    and this was a year ago, it was the first one that this
    President was successful in doing away with with the
    congressional review process, was a rule that was put in by the
    previous Administration that said that if you are a domestic
    oil or gas company and you are competing with China or someone
    else, you have to give them all of the playbook that you are
    using, actually putting them at a disadvantage over our
    opposition overseas.
        Now, it was easy to draw up a CRA and pass it. It did pass;
    we had a signing ceremony. But you know, the fact that we have
    all these regulations out there is really pretty outrageous.
        Mr. Duvall, you mentioned in your opening statement--you
    talked about the WOTUS bill. Now, I know that when I went
    around my State of Oklahoma before, you took a position, and
    most of the other organizations took the same position that are
    representing farmers, that in my area of Oklahoma, in western
    Oklahoma, it is very arid, and those people out there, of all
    the regulations that were put in by the previous
    Administration, that was the No. 1 regulation, and it ended up
    being the No. 1 regulation also from the American Farm Bureau
    and other organizations.
        So, I would just ask you if there is anything that you
    didn't say about that particular regulation that would either
    be costly, how it would be costly or inconvenient, and have a
    negative effect.
        Mr. Duvall. Yes, sir. If you start looking at some of the
    conservation practices that we put on the ground to protect our
    soil and water on our farms, and you start transitioning land
    from one use to another, not commercial to agriculture, but one
    agricultural practice to another, there are unbelievable
    permitting procedures that certain areas of the country or the
    country has to go through to be able to do that.
        Senator Inhofe. Are you familiar with the panhandle of
    Oklahoma?
        Mr. Duvall. Not really. I am coming to the panhandle of
    Oklahoma, though.
        Senator Inhofe. Their concern was, after a rain, that
    could, all of a sudden, be considered to be a wetland.
        Mr. Duvall. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. And all of a sudden, you lose the State
    jurisdiction, and the Federal jurisdiction takes over. Do you
    see that consistently around the country?
        Mr. Duvall. I see it consistently, and also I see a
    variance of determination between agencies of what really is a
    wetland, what is not.
        Senator Inhofe. That is exactly right.
        Mr. Duvall. And it is unclear to farmers how they can
    perceive what their land really is.
        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much because that
    certainly is true.
        Mr. Hansen, I want to do this real quickly here because you
    probably are familiar with what we try to do with the lesser
    prairie-chicken and the ESA. We had seven States--I am sorry,
    five States, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado,
    that got together and they determined what they could do and
    what kind of reform that they could have, and everyone agreed
    it was near perfect; it was everyone deciding at home what the
    solution was.
        Now, you sometimes wonder if we go through all that trouble
    through the private sector, the landowners, and the landowners
    we know are the ones who are most concerned about the
    endangered species, about their own farms and taking care of
    environmental problems, why it is that you look at others doing
    that and Government just doesn't seem to put much weight behind
    that? I am talking about local suggestions, local programs that
    are working. Ever thought about that, Mr. Hansen?
        Mr. Hansen. All the time, Senator. It is very frustrating
    to work on trying to find a solution to an issue that is
    identified on the land and then have the rug pulled out from
    under you. In the situation you address, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service was privy to all the conversations, all the
    negotiations, the plan that was built. They knew what was
    coming; they agreed to it and then pulled the rug out from
    under those operators.
        Senator Inhofe. That is exactly what happened. And by the
    way, Fish and Wildlife did agree. They also agree that the best
    stewards of the land are the landowners themselves, so they
    need to be listened to also.
        Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. I am happy to yield to Senator Merkley, and
    I will have a chance to ask some questions later on.
        Jeff, we are happy you are here.
        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Senator.
        I appreciate you all bringing your experiences here to
    Capitol Hill. One of the things that is important to my farmers
    back in Oregon is the Agricultural Research Service. The
    Administration had proposed a significant cut, $360 million
    cut, to ARS and closing 17 ARS laboratories across the country.
    And on a bipartisan basis, we worked to keep that program,
    recognizing its impact on the yield of our crops, new diseases,
    and the importance of exploring the qualities of different
    plants that might work under different conditions.
        So, I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Duvall, with your role,
    do you support the Agricultural Research Service? Do you feel
    it is important to American agriculture?
        Mr. Duvall. By all means, Senator. It is so important for
    our country to invest in research and development in
    agricultural business. And if you look around the world, we are
    being outspent in research and development dollars, and that
    really is alarming to us and very concerning to us, that other
    parts of the world are having the opportunity to catch up and
    go ahead in some areas. So, research and development is a very
    key thing that we need to do to help our farmers stay on the
    cutting edge and being competitive in the world.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I am not sure what the next Trump
    budget will look like; we will have it soon, but if it proposes
    cuts again, I hope we will have your support, continuing to
    preserve those programs.
        A second piece that is important to a number of my farmers
    and ranchers are the conservation programs, conservation
    stewardship program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
    or EQUIP. This weekend I was out visiting 16 little towns in
    northeast Oregon. In one of the towns I met with a rancher who
    is also a local county commissioner, and he said his ranching
    operation would have gone down if it wasn't for the
    conservation program that helped provide support and resources
    to make the balance, if you will, the books balance. And I
    hadn't heard it put quite in those terms, that it made the
    difference between making it or not making it, but in general,
    is the Farm Bureau supportive of these conservation programs?
        Mr. Duvall. Yes, sir. You have also hit on another topic
    that is very important to us. You know, if we are going to be
    required by regulation to do certain things, and of course, as
    farmers, we want to be able to take care of our land and our
    water, so to have a partnership through those programs with the
    general public and the Government, a partnership, and I will
    emphasize that, to help us do the right thing, help us do the
    right thing, because we are making huge investments ourselves
    in those same projects.
        Senator Merkley. Well, these are voluntary programs that I
    think is pretty much a win-win for everyone.
        Mr. Duvall. It is voluntary, and it is cost sharing.
        Senator Merkley. By the way, he also talked to me about his
    concern on the sage grouse, because we have had a voluntary
    program where ranchers can essentially adopt a certain number
    of measures, and then they are protected from any rules that
    the Endangered Species Act might invoke in the future by having
    been up front and helping, and we had hundreds of ranchers sign
    up for this in Oregon.
        I am not really asking a question about it, I am just
    noting that they are very concerned about the partnership that
    had been put together to try to avoid a listing might fall
    apart under some of the pressures from the current
    Administration.
        I also wanted to ask about the agricultural work force.
    Many of us here, from our orchardists, from our wine makers,
    from our growers in almost every field, the importance of farm
    workers to make that economy function and that a whole lot of
    traditional workers that have been there year after year are
    not showing up under the current prevailing commentary and
    attitude toward the role of farm workers.
        Does the Farm Bureau support working to essentially embrace
    the role of our farm workers as part of our agricultural
    economy?
        Mr. Duvall. Our existing farm workers that are here in the
    country are skilled workers, and our business requires skilled
    workers, and it is vitally important. It is the biggest
    limiting factor to farms to be able to be productive, add to
    the economy of their community, and to be able to create
    additional jobs, whether it be on the farm or manufacturing or
    performing finished products of our commodities after we grow
    them, so it is a critical issue. It is the most restraining
    issue that we have outside of regulation.
        Senator Merkley. I certainly look forward to working with
    you all as we endeavor to address this challenge. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Dr. Hill, my friend from New Jersey
    outlined a very graphic situation in North Carolina, and in a
    minute I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that
    because the response on the record will be helpful to hundreds
    of people, but there are thousands of people listening on
    television. I think they need to know that I think that what
    you are about to tell us is that it doesn't have to be that
    way, and in your farms in Iowa you have a solution there.
        But what we are talking about with regard to CERCLA and
    EPCRA is a reporting requirement, and Congress thought--we
    thought we had recognized that certain farmers should be
    excluded from this reporting requirement, and the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the D.C. Circuit disagreed with this exemption. The
    decision has now been stayed, and farmers really don't know
    where they are.
        I notice that Mr. Scuse--in his testimony, Secretary Scuse
    said that we need a legislative fix. And I think probably, Dr.
    Hill and Mr. Duvall, you agree with that. Mr. Scuse said, ``We
    cannot keep putting farmers on notice, wondering when they will
    be hit with legal liability for untimely or inaccurate
    reporting.'' So, I think maybe we have bipartisan support here,
    and consensus, that we need a legislative fix.
        I will tell the members of the panel that Senator Fischer
    and Senator Donnelly, a Republican and a Democrat, intend to
    introduce legislation this week, the Fair Agriculture Reporting
    Method Act, which would clarify this rule to exempt all animal
    feeding operations from CERCLA reporting and small operations
    from EPCRA reporting requirements.
        So, if you could speak to that, Dr. Hill and Mr. Duvall,
    but also go ahead and finish your thought, which might give
    some reassurance in Duplin County, North Carolina, that they
    don't have to experience what was described by my friend from
    New Jersey.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you. Well, first of all, I would say we
    would support that bill 100 percent. We need clarity. What
    producers fear now is that they are going to use inadequate
    tools to try to estimate these emissions, and then, if they are
    wrong, they are going to get huge penalties. So that bill would
    be supported by us.
        I think Senator Booker misrepresented the pork industry in
    North Carolina. I worked in North Carolina for 5 years. That is
    a gross misrepresentation of the farms in North Carolina. They
    do use different technology than we do in Iowa. They have a
    growing crop year round--we do not--so they can use spray
    fields to apply mainly dewater the lagoons. It is not raw
    manure that they are putting on the Bermuda grass.
        In Iowa, almost all of our manure today is incorporated at
    the 4 to 6 inch, No. 1, to prevent runoff; No. 2, to prevent
    smell. So, we feel like we have made tremendous progress in
    this manure application, and there is new technology for pit
    additives, polymers that reduce odor dramatically that
    producers are using, that, along with cover crops. We see a
    tremendous increase in cover crops in Iowa. So I think
    producers are trying to do everything they can to be good
    stewards.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Duvall, what would the Farm Bureau
    think about this legislation that I described from Senator
    Donnelly and Senator Fischer? And do we agree that what we are
    talking about here is an unfortunate decision by the Circuit
    Court about a reporting requirement on these small operations?
        Mr. Duvall. We do agree with that, Senator, and we applaud
    the Senators that are getting involved in trying to fix
    something that is wrong, that is wrong, and be very difficult.
    My neighbor to my left here has explained it very eloquently.
    It would be put our farmers at risk. I have 400 mama cows that
    have a calf by their side, spread over 1,500 acres in
    Gainsbourg, Georgia. How in the world am I going to monitor
    that? How am I going to report that? And then I have four
    chicken houses. How am I going to report the emissions of those
    animals?
        It just puts us a big liability. There is no need in doing
    it, and it was not the intent of the Congress that we think it
    was, so we would agree with that and applaud it.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our witnesses for joining in this very
    important conversation.
        In my home State of Illinois, the agricultural community is
    our backbone, but also our heart. I have witnessed firsthand
    how, when our farmers thrive, the entire State thrives.
        One policy of critical importance to our farmers is the
    Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires our transportation fuel
    to be mixed with biofuels. Since it was enacted, the policy has
    helped us cut our dependence on foreign oil and our greenhouse
    gas emissions, which is critical to our efforts to combat
    climate change.
        It is also an important economic policy. In Illinois alone,
    the RFS supports more than 4,000 jobs and generates more than
    $5 billion in economic impact. Nationwide, it supports 86,000
    jobs and has helped generate $8.7 billion in tax revenues that
    go to schools, roads, firefighters, all the first responders.
        Mr. Scuse, can you please share how the RFS is helping
    revive rural and agricultural communities?
        Mr. Scuse. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to
    comment on the Chairman's comment earlier about Governor Carney
    and his opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard. It deals
    with the purchase of the RINs, or the credits, and the
    blending, and that is something that needs to be addressed
    because of the speculation that has driven the cost of those
    RINs up, and that is something that does need to be addressed.
        But when you look at the Renewable Fuel Standard and what
    it has been able to do for our rural communities, we are
    producing 4.6 billion, 4.8 billion bushels of corn now every
    year. If we weren't using approximately 4.5 billion bushels of
    that for the ethanol industry, which is improving our
    environment, the price of corn would be so far below production
    that we would not be able to produce corn in this country.
        And when you look at the feed value of the by-product, in
    2012, when we had one of the worst droughts in the history of
    the United States and there were those that were arguing to set
    the Renewable Fuel Standard aside because of the fear that
    there would not be enough corn, livestock producers--I traveled
    across the United States talking to producers during the
    drought--livestock producers in every single State that I
    visited said please do not allow EPA to set that fuel standard
    aside; we need the dry distillers grain to feed our livestock,
    whether it was the dairy industry, the pork industry, or the
    beef industry.
        So, when you look at a more cost effective feed, if you
    look at the money--and Senator Moran said it like you just
    did--the health of our rural communities is depending on the
    health and well being of our farmers and ranchers in this
    country, and the Renewable Fuel Standard has done that; it has
    created jobs, it has improved the environment, and it has given
    our producers another outlet for the crops that they produce to
    help keep those rural communities viable.
        Senator Duckworth. So changing biofuel production in this
    country, as EPA Administrator Pruitt, who comes from an oil
    producing State, has called to do for the RFS, could actually
    negatively impact farm prices and farm income.
        Mr. Scuse. Yes, it could have, and would have, a large
    negative impact on the price that our producers are receiving
    for the corn that they produce. And the reality is most
    vehicles on the road today could use E-15. And we now have
    stations across the United States that are now putting in blend
    pumps so that producers or consumers have a choice, they can
    get E-15; and in many cases now there are stations that are
    providing E-85, so I think that is the direction that we need
    to go in, with a renewable energy, not one that we have to pump
    out of the ground that is not renewable. And again, this one is
    helping our rural communities across the country and our
    livestock producers.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I have been burning E-85 in
    my F-150 since 2006, so she burns nice and clean.
        Fifty-five percent of my home State is experiencing drought
    conditions, and the trend nationally is that drought conditions
    are on the rise. Whether you believe they are associated with
    changing climate or not, the fact is that our farmers and
    ranchers are concerned that growing seasons are changing, and
    not necessarily for the better.
        Mr. Teske, as a farmer and a leader in the agricultural
    community, can you please share what types of tools and
    resources farmers and ranchers need to help you adapt to these
    changing climate conditions?
        Mr. Teske. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. In Kansas, it is
    very obvious that we have a changing climate, and so, you know,
    I see farmers getting ready to plant corn and going out in the
    fields in March, and I go to just shake my head. You know,
    there is a coffee shop thing that everybody here, they get
    their machines ready, and then they want to be the first ones
    out in the field, but actually it is working more and more. In
    my own operation, I was an organic farmer for 13 years. I
    finally gave that up because of the changing weather patterns.
    And our springs have changed so much that it got to the point
    where I couldn't slip in between weather events and get the
    ground worked up and worked down and planted, so I had to
    change my operation to match the weather patterns. I wish I was
    still organic.
        Farmers are planting more and more on catastrophic events.
    I heard the Governor of Iowa, a few years back, talking about
    it was the goal of Iowa to deal with climate change by tiling
    the entire State. You know, weather patterns affect different
    areas dramatically, and I happen to be on top of the world, so
    I don't have to worry about floods, but I do have to worry
    about maintaining my stream banks and dealing with ever
    changing climate, especially with livestock.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very excited
    you are holding this hearing today. I am a rancher, so I
    appreciate Senator Duckworth's comments about farming and
    ranching communities as the backbone and the heart of a State,
    because that is true in Nebraska as well.
        So, thank you, Senator.
        And what a great panel we have; Farmers Union, Farm Bureau.
    I loved your comments, sir, on the RFS and E-15. I have some
    legislation on that, so that is great.
        I appreciated, Dr. Hill, that you had the opportunity to
    respond when Senator Wicker asked you to earlier comments made
    by Senator Booker, so I appreciate that. My husband and I, we
    do have a cattle ranch. Our sons are fourth generation Sand
    Hills ranchers.
        We understand conservation. We understand being true
    environmentalists. Our family does; our neighbors in the Sand
    Hills do; ag producers all across the State of Nebraska do; and
    ag producers, farmers and ranchers, all across the United
    States understand it. We take care of the land. We live on the
    land. We want clean air, we want clean water, and we manage our
    livelihood, our lives to make sure that we have that and that
    we continue to preserve it for future generations.
        I am going to talk to another rancher now. So, Mr. Hansen,
    thank you so much for being here. I would like to build off of
    Senator Barrasso's comments a little bit, if we can. In your
    statement, you discussed reporting requirements for animal
    waste odors under CERCLA and the EPCRA, and with CERCLA
    reports, those are directed to the National Response Center,
    and that is operated by the United States Coast Guard. I don't
    know if people are aware of that.
        They are used by the Federal Government to facilitate a
    Government coordinated emergency response effort to animal
    waste odors, and to me, this really doesn't make a lot of
    sense. Not only is there no added value of these reporting
    requirements, but the abundance of farm reports is going to jam
    up the response personnel at the National Response Center and
    prevent them from responding, I think, to true emergencies.
        Mr. Hansen, can you please describe what measures cattle
    producers would have to take to comply with all of these
    reporting requirements?
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator. We have no tools to do
    that, so I can't answer the question, I'm sorry.
        Senator Fischer. Well, then you can't fill out the report,
    right?
        Mr. Hansen. Pardon?
        Senator Fischer. You can't fill out the report.
        Mr. Hansen. Exactly.
        Senator Fischer. Right.
        Mr. Duvall and Dr. Hill, you both were talking about
    privacy concerns with these reports, and also concerns with
    activists coming onto personal private property. Do you have
    anything to add to comments that you made earlier on that,
    either one of you?
        Mr. Duvall. You know, our farmers and ranchers are in a
    very difficult economy right now; we don't need to put any
    burden on them. And this presents a huge liability issue for
    them. Farmers and ranchers aren't doing anything wrong out
    there, but when you give them a tool as far as reporting there,
    and I would answer the same, we have no way of measuring that.
        And we would have to hire some expert, and the Government
    could disagree with the expert and make us a hire a different
    one and spend thousands and thousands of dollars that we can't
    afford to do in a very bad economy. Even when it is good we
    couldn't afford it.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen, you also mention in your written testimony the
    compliance challenges producers face as a result of the Spill
    Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure, the SPCC rule for on-
    farm fuel storage. And while WRDA did include a provision that
    I championed that would provide more flexibility, this
    overreach continues to weigh heavily on the minds of farmers
    and ranchers in Nebraska and across our country.
        As you noted, this rule was originally applied to oil
    refineries, but now ag producers are being forced to also
    comply. So, what do you believe must be done so that we can
    alleviate that burden of that SPCC rule for our farmers and
    ranchers on the fuel storage?
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator. You know, I guess I would
    have to say we just need to exempt the people out on the
    ground. It is such a different situation; the risk is minimal
    compared to what the Act is designed to address.
        Senator Fischer. Right. And in the previous Administration
    there was a study done that we had requested on this Committee,
    and I would just point out that one of the areas studied was
    leakage with jet fuel. I don't know too many farms and ranches
    that have jet fuel there. So, I think when you have a flawed
    study, it leads to flawed policy and flawed decisionmaking.
        So I would hope that we could move ahead not just on the
    CERCLA rule, but also on the SPCC and in other number of rules
    that are out there that people on the land, everyday producers
    who are trying to take care of their families, take care of
    their communities, find such a disadvantage in trying to fight
    Government every single day.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I will start on a lighter note. Before we started the
    hearing, I asked Mr. Duvall, I said, where did you get a name
    like Zippy, and he told me, and I think this is worth
    repeating, just very briefly, Mr. Duvall, also known as Zippy.
    I don't know many Zippys----
        Mr. Duvall. Mr. Senator, this is the first time I've ever
    been asked that.
        Senator Carper. Probably in a congressional hearing.
        Mr. Duvall. In a congressional hearing, I will tell you
    that.
        Senator Carper. We could put you under oath, if it is
    necessary.
        Mr. Duvall. Well, by my father's words, he said I was my
    mother's first C-section, second child. He was wanting a big
    family so he could get all his farm work done, and it
    disappointed him, so the nurses said, that's a piece of cake;
    we'll put a zipper in her stomach. So, I got nicknamed Zipper
    and it got moved over to Zippy in the years to come.
        Senator Carper. Does not seem to have impeded your progress
    in life, Mr. President.
        Mr. Duvall. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Teske, I wanted to just clarify what I
    think you said earlier. In the past year, I understood you said
    the Agriculture Advisory Committee has not yet heard from this
    Administration. Is that what you said?
        Mr. Teske. Could you repeat that?
        Senator Carper. I thought I heard you say earlier, you
    talked about hearing from the previous Administration, I think
    with respect to the Agriculture Advisory Committee, and I think
    you also said that you have not heard yet, by phone, by e-mail,
    whatever, from the current Administration. Did I hear you
    correctly?
        Mr. Teske. Yes. Administrator McCarthy had reappointed me
    right before she left that position, with the intention of
    having some continuation from the previous advisory group to
    the next advisory group, and so I would have liked to have
    thought that, if there was any action going on, I would have
    known about it, and it has been total silence.
        Senator Carper. All right; thanks.
        Mr. Teske. I think that is a loss for us all.
        Senator Carper. I think you are probably right. Thank you
    for telling us that.
        If I could, Mr. Secretary, Secretary Scuse, a question
    relating to waters of the U.S. Help us to understand, was it
    not the intention and the result of the Obama administration's
    Clean Water Rule to create certainty in the regulatory process?
        I heard for years that farmers didn't understand; they
    needed clarity in terms of where they would get in trouble.
    Developers needed clarity and certainty, predictability, with
    whether they would get into trouble by developing or raising
    crops in ways that were inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.
    And as a result of that, the effort was launched to develop
    what we call the waters of the U.S. We did literally a town
    hall meeting on a farm in Delaware, as you may recall, and had
    farmers there, developers there, and we had folks from EPA,
    from the Army Corps of Engineers. This was like a couple years
    ago, to actually understand what was being asked; what was
    needed in the way of certainty.
        And it sounds like, from some of the testimony we have
    heard here and comments in other places, that everything was
    fine, and we didn't have uncertainty before. Actually, I think
    we had a lot. So WOTUS was an effort to try to deal with that.
        You were in the middle of this as the Acting Secretary, the
    Acting Deputy Secretary, and so forth, so your thoughts,
    please, I think would be illuminating. You were on the inside.
        Mr. Scuse. Thank you, Senator. I think, you know, we need
    to take a step back and look at why all of this happened. And
    if memory serves me correctly, all of this resulted from a
    Supreme Court hearing with the EPA in the Chicago area, where
    there was a wetland that they deemed was waters of the U.S.
    that was not connected to any other waters.
        So, when you look at the confusion with that case, and then
    the EPA attempted to define what in fact were waters of the
    U.S. and the overreach by the EPA in attempting to come to what
    constituted waters of the U.S., I think that is when we started
    down the road to look at what does constitute waters of the
    U.S.; what do we need to put in place to protect certain waters
    that we have across the United States.
        So, the last Administration attempted to bring that
    certainty, in fact, to the producers and to other areas of the
    United States to show what in fact was waters of the U.S.
        As the Senator pointed out, there were the hearings in the
    State of Delaware, reached out to all of our communities that
    we thought would be impacted. But unfortunately, I don't know,
    Senator, that that happened in other areas of the United
    States. But this was an attempt by the Obama administration to
    bring some clarity that was being demanded by all the sectors;
    not just the agriculture sector, but other sectors as well, as
    to what did in fact constitute waters of the U.S.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very much. My recollection was
    that as the Waters of the U.S. rule was being developed, there
    were 4 years of extensive public outreach and regulation
    development--4 years; hundreds of meetings with farmers,
    ranchers, developers, State and local leaders, and others,
    including in our State; a review of some 1,200 peer reviewed
    scientific studies; robust legal policy and economic analyses;
    and consideration of over 1 million public comments without any
    effort to rebut the rule or build a new informed or credible
    basis to pursue a different course. A million comments, and I
    am told they were essentially all responded to.
        So, I just want to put that out there for the record. Thank
    you for your clarification, as well.
        Mr. Chairman, if I could, maybe one last question, and this
    will be for the entire panel.
        Again, thank you all for coming here today. I appreciate
    what you do in your lives in the real world, the rest of the
    world, with your families and all, and we appreciate very much
    your being here and sharing your insights with us, regardless
    of what your first names are.
        As the Chairman knows, I like to look for win-win
    opportunities, he does, too, and rather than being in conflict
    with one another, I see many potential opportunities for win-
    win outcomes with regard to environmental policy in farming and
    ranching communities. You have talked about that today; each
    one of you have.
        For example, if there is an application in fertilizer that
    could reduce farmers' input costs and reduce nitrogen runoff
    and greenhouse gas emissions of nitrous oxide; roll till
    farming is another we oftentimes hear about, but oftentimes
    there are barriers that prevent us from achieving these win-win
    outcomes.
        We here in Congress can help break down those barriers so
    that we can then all seize these opportunities, and maybe each
    of you could just give us a good example of a win-win
    opportunity out there that is waiting to be seized if we would
    just seize it, and how you might help us achieve that.
        And if I could, I am just going to start off. I was joking
    with him earlier; he had his hat on and everything, and I said,
    I was just listening yesterday to one of my favorite CDs, Glenn
    Campbell's Greatest Hits. The Chairman and I are big music
    buffs. And the first song there was Rhinestone Cowboy. You came
    in here today, and I said, there's a rhinestone cowboy.
        But actually, you are the real deal, so would you just lead
    us off, please, Niels? Would you just lead us off, please?
    Again, we are looking for a win-win, just an example of another
    win-win opportunity. You cited a number of them in each of your
    testimonies, win-win opportunities where cleaner environment,
    cleaner air, cleaner water, and actually more profitable
    farming actually coexist well. They work together; they don't
    exclude another.
        But just another, maybe, example of where we can do that,
    should do that. If you have an example of an area that you
    think is fertile for us to explore and to participate, to help
    nurture, we would be happy to do that. If anybody else wants to
    jump in.
        Zippy, you look like you are ready to say something.
        Mr. Duvall. Yes, sir, Mr. Senator. There are a lot of
    situations where we have regulations that are overlapping, and
    we are looking into things twice, where, you know, if we could
    just simplify it and do it efficiently, for example, FIFRA has,
    over 40 years, had the responsibility of doing approval of
    pesticides. You know, there is no reason for the Clean Water
    Act to be involved in it and ask them to make the same
    judgments that FIFRA has been doing for 40 years. And that is
    just one example.
        You know, farmers and ranchers want to do the right thing,
    and in the past we used to go to our extension service or the
    FSA to ask for advice and get help and look for a partner for
    us to do the right thing on the farm. We are scared of our
    Federal agencies now. We are actually fearful of them because
    we know that they could cost us hundreds of thousands of
    dollars trying to arrange permitting and hiring consultants and
    lawyers to be able to get to that.
        We want to be a partner with our Federal Government. We
    want to have agencies that are friendly to us, and we are
    hoping that we can work with you to make that happen.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Others, please.
        Mr. Hill.
        Mr. Hill. I would use the example of the nutrient reduction
    program that we have in Iowa that is supported by our Governor,
    our past Governor, and our current Governor, and also by our
    secretary of agriculture. It is a voluntary cooperative
    project; it was just funded by the State legislature for over a
    10 year period for $300 million. It is projects that producers
    work in conjunction with State regulatory agencies to put
    processes in place to reduce runoff, reduce contamination of
    water, and I think it is the right way to go, a cooperative,
    voluntary program, rather than somebody from Washington coming
    down and saying this is what you have to do. Producers respond
    to it a heck of a lot better.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
        I would just say to Secretary Scuse it reminds me a little
    bit of what we did in Delaware, what we have done in Delaware.
        Would you opine for us, too, Michael?
        Mr. Scuse. You know, Senator, there are a lot of different
    examples. You know, I look at what we did in Delaware when we
    created--when you created, as then-Governor, the Nutrient
    Management Commission and the great things that we have been
    able to do to help clean up our waters that ultimately
    discharge into the Chesapeake.
        I mean, there is a great example of everyone working
    together to make that happen. And the latest Chesapeake Bay
    model, I think you will be pleased to know, will show that
    Delaware has had tremendous improvements in a very short period
    of time.
        You know, we heard about the act for those that are
    endangered species. I am here to tell you that, yes, there are
    some things that could be done differently, but in my home
    State of Delaware--your home State of Delaware, Governor--
    pretty much every day now I am seeing bald eagles, something
    that, when I was a child, we never ever saw today. You look at
    some of the other things that are occurring where----
        Senator Carper. Bald eagles or did you say Philadelphia
    Eagles?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I couldn't resist. I could not resist.
    Excuse me.
        Mr. Scuse. Good catch, Senator. I said bald eagles. I meant
    Philadelphia Eagles.
        You know, you look at, by working together, we all know,
    all of us at this table understand that there is a serious
    issue with honey bees across the United States, and with USDA,
    EPA, and our State partners working together to help find a
    solution to those problems in areas, we are making a
    difference.
        The monarch butterfly is an issue where we are seeing rapid
    declines of the monarch butterfly. But now we have States
    working with our Federal partners to plant, you know, milkweed
    along some of our highways to make sure that, you know, we have
    the proper habitat for those areas.
        And I know there is legislation that you are working here
    to renew that, but the Pesticides Registration Act that helps
    companies do the research for our producers to help them do a
    better job and get better projects to our producers, there is
    another area where these things actually do work.
        Can there be a better job? There is no doubt about it.
    Senator, there can be a better job in many of these areas. But
    I think what we need to do when we start looking at regulation
    is working together with all of those that are ultimately
    impacted, and listening and finding a solution. And in that way
    we can eliminate, in my opinion, some of the problems that we
    have had over past Administrations with the implementation of
    regulations.
        Senator Carper. Let me just ask the other panelists if you
    approve that message; would you raise your hand?
        Let the record show the other four panelists raised their
    hands. Good.
        All right, Mr. Teske, please, same question, please.
        Mr. Teske. Thank you, Senator. There are two things I would
    like to discuss, and both of them are in regards to mitigating
    and adapting to climate change, which is something I am
    passionate personally about. No. 1 is whatever we do as we move
    forward to mitigate climate problems, a huge part of that is
    going to have to be agricultural involvement. We are the
    stewards of the land. We are the stewards of the carbon sink.
        Another, if cap and trade ever comes to be, and we can
    reimplement a carbon trading program, that is a win-win all the
    way around. That is sequestering carbon; that is making better
    soils; that is paying a producer a stipend for doing the right
    thing. That is just logical. And the models there can be very
    successful, and it can make significant differences quickly. It
    isn't going to be the only solution to the problem, but we are
    a key part of it.
        And then the other one is the further evolution of the
    renewable fuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard. If we can grow
    beyond the status of corn ethanol into perennial crops and
    higher value crops that use less moisture and less nutrients,
    we could see dramatic differences in our future with renewable
    fuels.
        So, I think there is potential in both and win-wins in
    both.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I kid him when I say I go to Wyoming about
    every other week, Camden, Wyoming; it is a little town just
    south of Delaware.
        But we have great pressures in our State, a little State. A
    lot of people want to come to our beaches; great 5 star
    beaches. And a lot of people come, which is good. Tourism is
    real important for us, but it drives development, and we have
    to be careful that we just don't overdevelop our State.
        One of the things we worked on when I was Governor, and
    before that, Mike Castle, and since then with your
    administration when you worked with Governor Minner, was how do
    we encourage farmers to stay on the land. And one of the best
    ways to encourage farmers to stay on the land, instead of
    development taking over, is with farmers being able to make
    money and to be profitable. And Mr. Teske, you just mentioned a
    couple of things that will actually help to do that, and I
    think we need to be mindful of that.
        There are obviously things that we disagree on that we
    talked about here today, but there is actually a lot that we
    agree on, and the Chairman's colleague from Wyoming, Mike Enzi,
    Senator Enzi likes to talk about the 80/20 rule. When I first
    heard him talk about it, he said the 80/20 rule explained why
    he and Ted Kennedy got so much done on the Health, Education,
    Labor, and Pension Committee; one a very conservative
    Republican, the other a very liberal Democrat.
        Mike Enzi introduced me to the 80/20 rule. He said, Ted and
    I agree on 80 percent of the stuff; we disagree on 20 percent
    of the stuff. And what we decided to do was focus on the 80
    percent where we agree; set the other 20 percent aside for
    another day. That is the 80/20 rule, right out of the mouth of
    a former mayor of Gillette, Wyoming. It is actually a good rule
    for not just the Health, Education, Labor Committee, but a good
    rule for this Committee and I think for the Congress as a
    whole.
        This has been a wonderful hearing. Thank you all.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks for bringing us together.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Mr. Hansen, it looked like you were trying to say something
    to answer one of the responses. Anything you would like to add
    today?
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator. I would like to address
    Senator Carper's question. I have to ask your forgiveness. I am
    very dedicated about what I do, but I can't hear a thing.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hansen. When it comes to working together, the field is
    ripe with opportunity in the West on Federal lands, and in our
    operation we have proven that there is common ground, and there
    is a lot of common ground, but we always run into the headache
    of the Federal regulation.
        NEPA is a huge one. We get tied up in the paperwork, the
    decisionmaking process on something that should be really
    simple to do. So, expanded authority on categorical exclusions,
    if we could get a lot of the red tape pulled out of the way,
    the unnecessary questions and timetables, would really assist
    us in improving things on the land. And every time we do
    something good on the land, it affects everything. On our
    operation, we have increased our elk population, our mule deer
    population, our antelope population, and have increased our
    livestock, creating a more profitable operation.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. That was worth waiting for.
    Thanks very much.
        Senator Barrasso. And when I asked three of you earlier
    about the time it would take to try to do some of this
    paperwork requirements, I think you had said, Mr. Hansen, you
    didn't have the tools and the time; Dr. Hill as well.
        While you raised the issue about trying to report, and
    Senator Fischer did as well, to this National Response Center
    on the release, it is the Coast Guard, of all things. They have
    expressed concern that this dramatic increase in reporting is
    going to overwhelm the capacity to deal with this. They
    estimate the volume of calls that they get now, the NRC would
    increase from about 100 calls a day to over 1,000, hindering
    their own ability to respond to real emergencies. So that is
    the additional side of this that sometimes Government comes up
    with ideas and mandates that make it a lot harder for them to
    do the job that we need them to do in terms of the guarding of
    the coasts.
        I do have one question for you, Mr. Duvall, because it has
    to do with waters of the U.S. and the Clean Water Act. The
    Corps of Engineers is the agency that makes the vast majority
    of jurisdictional determinations that identify waters that are
    regulated under the Clean Water Act. Now, according to
    testimony this Committee heard during a hearing with the Corps
    last year, in April, the Corps was not included fully in this
    whole process that we just had outlined here, in terms of
    developing the 2015 WOTUS rule. You talked about 1 million
    people testifying and all of those things.
        In fact, the Corps stated that they did not believe that
    the rule and the preamble, as ultimately finalized, they say
    ``were viable from a factual, scientific, or legal basis.'' And
    the Corps went on to say ``It would be incredibly difficult for
    the Corps leaders, regulatory and legal staff, to advance and
    defend this rule.'' So that is the Corps of Engineers.
        They also testified in statements and characterizations
    that the WOTUS rule is a joint product by the EPA and the
    Corps, which is what the EPA said, a joint product of the EPA
    and the Corps, the Corps says are flat false, flat out false.
        So, my question to you is, given these statements by the
    Corps of Engineers, how much faith do we have in the science
    behind the current WOTUS rule as proposed by the previous
    Administration?
        Mr. Duvall. We have no faith in it because in different
    Corps districts you have different people that are making those
    determinations and judgments, and there is no scientific basis
    that they can base their decisions on. And we can show you
    situation after situation where farmers have spent money with
    consultants and lawyers, and were able to put in for a permit,
    for a Corps or a regulatory person to say, no, I don't agree
    with you and send you back to the drawing board to spend that
    money again and try to get them to agree with you. And it is
    all over the board; there is no consistency.
        You know, I had the opportunity to have lunch with Mr.
    Pruitt the other day, and he asked me what did we need in the
    Clean Water Act, a definition of navigable waters. I said, you
    know, a farmer knows his land better than anyone else does
    anywhere, especially better than the people looking at it from
    a computer, and we ought to be able to ride out in that field
    in our pickup and simply be able to identify what navigable
    waters are and waters of the U.S. And if we could do that, we
    could take a huge financial burden off our farmers. We could
    create more jobs, add to our communities, and we are not going
    to destroy it. My land, every piece of it is like my house. I
    am not going to do anything to destroy or hurt my land or the
    water around it, because I want my great-great-grandchildren to
    be able to be there.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper, you had a quick question?
        Senator Carper. Just a quick unanimous consent request, Mr.
    Chairman, to submit additional documents related to the topic
    of environmental regulatory impacts on farming and ranching
    communities for the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. And again to say to our friends and
    witnesses, thank you so much for joining us today.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you all.
        Other members may submit questions for the record, and we
    ask that you respond quickly. The record of this hearing will
    stay open for the next 2 weeks. I want to thank all the
    witnesses for your time, your testimony on this very important
    issue.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]