    [Senate Hearing 115-267]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-267

      HEARING TO EXAMINE S.2663, THE AGRICULTURE CREATES REAL EMPLOYMENT
                                   (ACRE) ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 14, 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

     30-329 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2018

                   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

                                 MARCH 14, 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

    Miyamoto, Doug, Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture......     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Response to an additional question from Senator Carper.......    11
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Merkley.......    12
    Yates, Ryan, Director of Congressional Relations, American Farm
      Bureau Federation..............................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Merkley.......    24
    Lyons, Jim, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress,
      Lecturer, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies....    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    31

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Congressional Research Service; Fair Agricultural Reporting
      Method Act/FARM (S.2421).......................................   145
    Congressional Research Service; Supplemental Analysis: Fair
      Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM (S.2421)................   156
    Statement of National Wildlife Federation........................   160

      HEARING TO EXAMINE S.2663, THE AGRICULTURE CREATES REAL EMPLOYMENT
                                   (ACRE) ACT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
    Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Booker, 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 legislative hearing on the Agriculture
    Creates Real Employment, or the ACRE, Act. This is bipartisan
    draft legislation to help farmers, ranchers, and the
    communities they depend on get their relief from burdensome
    Federal regulations and policies.
        The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has a
    unique role to play in the policies that impact agriculture.
    Just last month this Committee held a hearing on this important
    issue and we heard testimony from real farmers and ranchers
    representing a diverse group of States.
        The message from our witnesses' testimony was clear: the
    negative impact of many Federal environmental regulations and
    policies on American farming and ranching communities is real
    and it needs to be addressed. The testimony we heard was 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.
        The draft bill we are discussing today is designed to
    provide relief for hardworking people that put a shovel in the
    ground every day, working to feed this Country. I believe the
    ACRE Act provides that relief.
        My bill addresses many issues that are critical to ranchers
    and farmers. These include protecting farmers' and ranchers'
    privacy; eliminating duplicative environmental permitting for
    the use of pesticides; addressing unneeded and
    counterproductive reporting requirements under the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act, the CERCLA Act; and doing away with the unfair
    punishment of farmers who are wrongly accused of baiting
    migratory game birds simply because they are following normal
    farming practices.
        The ACRE Act also supports an efficient permitting process
    at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for predator control. The
    change will allow ranchers and farmers to better protect their
    livestock from predator attacks.
        Most of these provisions were introduced as individual
    bills and have bipartisan support. One such bill introduced by
    Senator Fischer, the Fair Agriculture Reporting Method Act, or
    the FARM Act, has 12 Democratic cosponsors, including our
    Ranking Member. This bill addresses new animal waste emission
    reporting requirements.
        Over the past several months, farmers and ranchers
    struggled to comply with ambiguous agency directives following
    an April 2017 decision in the D.C. Circuit Court. The ruling
    meant up to 100,000 farmers and ranchers, who have never been
    required to report under these laws, would suddenly be required
    to comply. Even though they wanted to comply with the ruling,
    the process and implications of compliance were unclear.
    Because both CERCLA and EPCRA were not written with the intent
    of regulating these farm and ranches, the requirement to report
    emissions from animal waste came without context and largely
    without agency guidance.
        Another bill is Senator Crapo's S. 340, the Sensible
    Environmental Protection Act, which was introduced along with
    Democrat Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp, and McCaskill. This bill
    amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
    or FIFRA, and the Clean Water Act to eliminate a duplicative
    permitting requirement.
        The bill prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from
    requiring a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System for a pesticide application from a point
    source as long as the application is approved under FIFRA. In
    addition, the ACRE Act also has legislation sponsored by
    Independent Senator Angus King, S. 1206, which will ensure fair
    treatment and licensing requirements for the export of certain
    echinoderms.
        Let us remember that farmers and ranchers are the original
    stewards; they understand that landscapes and watershed 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 were found.
        Washington policies do not always translate well in rural
    America. As I mentioned at our last agriculture hearing, in
    February, when I was home in Wyoming, I often hear about just
    how out of touch the environmental regulations have become. It
    has gotten to the point where ranchers and farmers are burdened
    by the thought that they will be fined thousands of dollars for
    simply putting a shovel in the ground.
        I believe we should prioritize updating and revising
    policies that, while well-intentioned, were never designed to
    micromanage agriculture production. This is what the ACRE Act
    does.
        Now, before we move to our witnesses today, I would like to
    turn to Ranking Member Carper for his remarks.

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

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have had a chance
    to personally welcome, as you have, each of our witnesses.
        We are happy that you have joined us today. Welcome, with
    your presence and your testimony, your willingness to respond
    to some questions. I am going to have to leave here today at
    11, so I will not be here for the entire hearing, but I very
    much want to make the next hour count, so thank you all.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks a lot for bringing us in to cover this
    subject that is on our minds. It is something we have talked
    about a fair amount lately in another hearing actually right
    here in this room.
        I think we all can agree on the title of the legislation
    that we are considering here today. There is no doubt that
    agriculture creates real employment; it does in our State, in
    Delaware, and I know it does in States that are represented in
    this Committee and the Senate.
        As I have said in some of our previous hearings here,
    agriculture, believe it or not, is a critical economic driver
    in Delaware. Over 40 percent of our land is dedicated to
    farming and our State's agricultural sector employs some 30,000
    Delawareans, while contributing nearly $8 billion a year to the
    State's economy. That is a lot of money for a little State.
        As my colleagues have heard me say a time or two before, I
    believe that our Country's environmental laws and regulations
    have, by and large, served our entire Nation, including our
    farmers, well. It is possible to have clean air and clean
    water. It is possible to protect our land and conserve species
    and still have good jobs, plenty of jobs. It takes some work to
    find the right solutions to achieve that balance, but the hard
    work almost always pays off.
        One such example is the FARM Act, which is included as one
    of the sections in the ACRE Act. Its prime sponsor is here with
    us today, the Senator from Nebraska.
        But, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we worked hard to strike a
    careful compromise on that legislation. In my opinion, the FARM
    Act is an example of where we can do a good job balancing the
    needs of our farmers, while preserving access to information
    that can help protect public health.
        Unfortunately, I do not believe that the ACRE Act in its
    entirety represents the same thoughtful approach. The
    legislation recognizes and attempts to address concerns raised
    by some of our farmers. As drafted, though, I don't believe
    that it adequately balances those interests with the interests
    of other natural resource-dependent industries.
        For example, Delaware has a booming wildlife tourism
    industry. I know other States represented here do too. But
    visitors come from all over the world to observe migratory
    birds in Delaware, including the federally listed threatened
    Red Knot. A 2016 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study found
    that more than 45 million people, 45 million people enjoyed
    bird watching that year, enjoying other wildlife watchers and
    contributing more than $75 billion to the U.S. economy. The
    Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act help
    ensure the long-term viability of that industry, too. In its
    current form, I fear that the ACRE Act could have harmful
    implications for these important laws.
        Having said that, there may be ways to address farmers'
    concerns without unintended consequences. For example, our
    Federal agencies can work with stakeholders to explore
    administrative options that may resolve endangered species and
    migratory bird concerns. Or we in this Committee may be able to
    reach narrower, truly bipartisan compromises in some of the
    items contained in the ACRE Act. I hope so.
        Further, there are stewardship success stories that this
    Committee and the Congress should examine that are examples of
    ways to improve collaboration and conservation outcomes in
    agriculture. For example, just last year, in the town of
    Blades, just south of Seaford, the world's first nylon plant
    was built some almost 80 years ago.
        But in the town of Blades, located in the southwestern part
    of our State, Perdue Farms worked with several communities to
    expand its multimillion dollar nutrient recycling investment on
    Delmarva. This investment and new composting operation
    increased the company's capacity to handle surplus poultry
    litter and allowed other agricultural byproducts to be
    recycled.
        This actually started in my last term as Governor, Mr.
    Chairman. We took some State money, added to that a lot of
    money from Perdue, and created this industry in the
    southwestern part of our State, so we are not just going to
    spread all those nutrients on farm fields, but actually turn
    some of them into--I think it was the Scott lawn care people,
    the Scott people, they sell the stuff all over the Country as
    an organic fertilizer. But we have taken some important other
    steps in Delaware to help farmers become even better stewards
    of the land.
        I have mentioned before, and I will do it again here
    briefly today, again, when I served as Governor, the last year
    or two, we addressed high levels of agricultural runoff by
    forming the Nutrient Management Commission, farmer-led. The
    Commission brought together farmers and members of the
    environmental community to devise commonsense solutions, and
    that is basically three things: have farmers check the nutrient
    levels in their field, the ability of fields to absorb
    nutrients, phosphorous and nitrogen in particular; each of the
    farmers are going to be using the nutrients to develop a plan
    that is appropriate for their farms at non-polluting levels;
    and then provide the training necessary to implement the plans.
        Initiatives like those led by the Nutrient Management
    Commission and smart investments like those by Perdue in the
    State of Delaware are just two examples that this Committee
    can, and I think should, look at as we strive to protect our
    air, our water, while also creating economic opportunity in the
    agricultural industry.
        So, we look forward to hearing from all of our colleagues,
    our witnesses today to advance current and future legislation
    that supports our farmers and protects our environment. I look
    forward to hearing from all of you. Thank you again so much for
    joining us today. Welcome.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Carper.
        We are now going to turn to the witnesses, but I would like
    to first introduce Mr. Doug Miyamoto, who is joining us today
    and the first one to testify. He has served as the Director of
    the Wyoming Department of Agriculture since 2015. In his role
    as Director, Doug deals with issues that we will discuss here
    today on a daily basis: environmental reporting for Wyoming
    agriculture producers, predator management, liaising with
    Federal agencies to coordinate environmental resource issues,
    and many other issues that arise when getting our agriculture
    products to the end consumer.
        Doug previously served as the Executive Director of the
    Wyoming Livestock Board, the Deputy Director of the Wyoming
    Department of Agriculture, and in several other positions at
    the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Wyoming State
    Engineer's Office, and the University of Wyoming.
        Doug is uniquely qualified to speak to today's issues, both
    from his professional experience and because he received the
    highest quality education from the University of Wyoming.
        Senator Carper. Shameless.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Shameless pandering. What is their mascot?
    What is their mascot?
        Senator Barrasso. My wife has three degrees from the
    University of Wyoming.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. I am going to get her down here and
    debate you, Mr. Ranking Member, and you don't stand a chance.
        Senator Carper. I would lose.
        Senator Barrasso. He is uniquely qualified because of his
    incredible education, background, and degree. He studied range
    management for his undergraduate degree and later earned a
    Masters in rangeland ecology. He serves Wyoming well by
    bringing his holistic approach to his leadership at the Wyoming
    Department of Agriculture, and I am pleased that he would join
    us here today.
        In addition to Doug, we also have Mr. Ryan Yates, who is
    the Director of congressional Relations for the American Farm
    Bureau Federation, and Mr. Jim Lyons, who is a Senior Fellow at
    the Center for American Progress.
        So, I would like to welcome all three of you today. We
    would like to remind you that your full written testimony will
    be made part of the official hearing record, and please keep
    your statements to 5 minutes so that we may have time for
    questions.
        Doug, please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF DOUG MIYAMOTO, DIRECTOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Miyamoto. Chairman Barrasso, thank you for that kind
    introduction. Ranking Member Carper, members of the Committee,
    thank you so much for the privilege of speaking to you today
    about the ACRE Act.
        Again, Doug Miyamoto. I am the Director of the Wyoming
    Department of Agriculture, and I also currently serve as the
    Chairman of the Natural Resources and Environment Committee of
    the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
        I am here today to talk about my support for the ACRE Act,
    and I will highlight a few of the reasons why in my testimony
    today. I am not an expert on all of the issues that are
    addressed by the ACRE Act, but there is a common theme of
    ensuring that the ag industry is subject to the correct and
    intended regulations for normal agricultural activities. I will
    emphasize individual sections of the ACRE Act on which the
    Wyoming Department of Agriculture and NASDA have concentrated
    on in recent years, as those are the ones with which I am most
    familiar.
        Importantly, and I am sure you are all aware, Section 3 of
    the ACRE Act provides the exemptions from notice requirements
    and penalties revolving around CERCLA. I don't want to go into
    too much detail on this because I am sure you all have heard
    about the issues surrounding CERCLA, so I would just like to
    point out some specifics regarding the impact of CERCLA and its
    affiliated reporting requirements to Wyoming.
        Exempting farmers and ranchers not engaged in confined
    animal feeding operations is, in my opinion, simply the right
    thing to do. CERCLA was never intended to regulate the
    livestock industry, but, rather, to ensure cleanup of the
    Nation's most contaminated Superfund sites to protect the
    public.
        I have been asked many questions from Wyoming's producers
    about how they are to estimate emissions and how they are
    supposed to report those emissions in a non-confined range
    cattle setting. Unconfined range cattle represents the majority
    of the operations in the State of Wyoming, and by one suggested
    measure this continuing estimating reporting requirement would
    apply to all livestock operations involving more than 206 head
    of cattle.
        Obviously, this standard would incorporate the majority of
    the commercial livestock operations in Wyoming, and there is
    simply no way for the majority of Wyoming's cattle producers to
    know if their cattle are emitting more than 100 pounds of
    ammonia or hydrogen sulfide in any given day. Frankly, I don't
    know what to tell producers when they call me for technical
    assistance on how to comply with CERCLA at this point.
        The exemptions proposed in this Act will provide producers
    some protection from liability, and it also will address
    Federal agencies of jurisdiction, the EPA and the Coast Guard,
    and eliminate them wasting their limited resources on
    administering a program that does nothing to protect public
    health and also does not ensure that the Nation's priority
    Superfund sites are addressed appropriately. Including
    livestock operations in the reporting and penalty provisions of
    CERCLA is counterproductive both for producers and for the
    agencies, and illustrates why this language has 29 bipartisan
    cosponsors.
        Specific to Wyoming, another section I really wanted to
    highlight was Section 11 of the ACRE Act, and this simply
    reaffirms the authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    issue appropriate permits to address livestock depredation. As
    an example, I want to discuss eagle management and its
    challenges in Wyoming.
        Wyoming is home to the largest population of Golden and
    Bald Eagles in the lower 48 States. Wyoming is also known as a
    destination for wildlife viewing, and we view eagles as a
    valuable component of a balanced ecosystem. We do not want to
    decimate eagle populations.
        But in the instance of newborn livestock losses to eagle
    depredation, typically, additional newborn loss has already
    occurred before Fish and Wildlife Service can even pursue the
    first step of an eagle take permit, which is eagle harassment.
    It is such a slow process that is a rarity for the next step,
    which would be live capture and removal, to ever even be
    pursued. Livestock producers have more frequently had to resort
    to much more surveillance of their young stock; they have had
    to move herds completely to entirely new locations; and they
    have had to build and purchase lambing sheds, calving sheds to
    conduct operations indoors to protect from these depredations.
        We have seen a lot of sheep business leave entirely due to
    eagle depredation. In 2017 alone, Wyoming experienced 1,000
    sheep and lamb losses to eagle depredation, according to the
    National Agricultural Statistic Service. This doesn't even
    mention the impact of ravens on sage grouse, which can be
    addressed also by this provision within the Act.
        In conclusion, I would say, as a representative of
    government, I would assert to you that we have an obligation to
    ensure that our regulations are clear, consistent, and
    effective. I have made it a goal of the Wyoming Department of
    Agriculture to support commerce in the ag arena, even given the
    regulatory nature of our Department. One of my highest
    priorities is to lead the Department of Ag in a manner that
    emphasizes education before regulation and provides regulatory
    certainty for our producers.
        Again, I sincerely appreciate specifically the work of my
    Senator and Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    Senators Fischer and Donnelly on your specific work on CERCLA.
    That is very much appreciated. And I also appreciate the
    opportunity to present to the Committee today, and please know
    I am available for anything that you may need as a Committee.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miyamoto follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your very
    thoughtful and thorough testimony. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Yates.

     STATEMENT OF RYAN YATES, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS,
                    AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

        Mr. Yates. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for calling this important
    hearing on the ACRE Act and inviting me to testify on behalf of
    the American Farm Bureau Federation. Farm Bureau commends you
    for your leadership in advancing legislation which addresses a
    range of environmental policy issues which impose real costs
    and substantive burdens to our members. I will highlight our
    comments and support section by section.
        Farmers and ranchers support the solution provided in
    Section 3 of the ACRE Act, which will protect their businesses
    from financial strain and burden of unnecessary reporting
    requirements. CERCLA was enacted to provide for cleanup of the
    worst industrial chemical and toxic waste dumps and spills.
        CERCLA has two primary purposes: to give the Federal
    Government tools necessary for prompt response to problems
    resulting from hazardous waste disposal, and to hold polluters
    financially responsible for cleanup. Unfortunately, in April
    2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision
    vacating EPA's 2008 exemption for agricultural operations. I
    would like to point out the public safety concerns caused by
    these reporting requirements.
        Up to nearly 200,000 farms may have to report to the
    National Response Center, overwhelming that system and drawing
    resources from actual emergencies. Additionally, there are
    national security implications. By requiring reporting, we will
    be creating a roadmap for nearly our entire animal agriculture
    production system. Obviously, this creates an opportunity for
    mischief for those wanting to harm our very safe and abundant
    food supply. Last, requiring individual farmers and ranchers to
    disclose personal home addresses along with their farm
    information creates an opportunity for activists to harass
    farmers and ranchers where they live and work.
        Section 5 would protect farmers from Federal penalties
    levied under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act if they are
    following best practices provided by their State Cooperative
    Extension Service. AFBF supports the Hunter and Farmer
    Protection Act, which would allow each State's Cooperative
    Extension Service to clarify the difference between what
    constitutes baiting and normal agricultural practices.
        Section 6 of the ACRE Act is a proposal that has long
    enjoyed bipartisan support, and we strongly support its
    adoption. It simply states that when a pesticide is lawfully
    applied under FIFRA, it is not also regulated under the Clean
    Water Act. It has been the longstanding view of the law until
    it was thrown into question by decisions in the Ninth Circuit.
    We believe it is a sensible approach that reflects the will of
    Congress and prevents overregulation.
        AFBF supports Section 7, the Farmer Identity Protection
    Act, which would prohibit the EPA or an EPA contractor from
    disclosing information collected under Clean Water Act
    requirements from livestock operations. AFBF opposes the
    disclosure of personal and/or business information by an
    organization, business, or government agency about individual
    farmers and ranchers. The release of any information should
    only be allowed under specific written or electronic
    authorization of the individual or the private business entity.
        Section 8 would prohibit the EPA from enforcement of the
    Clean Water Act for agricultural operations through aerial
    surveillance without the written expressed consent of the
    owner-operator of the land. Farm Bureau supports the use of
    unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, as another tool for farmers
    and ranchers to use in managing their crops and livestock, and
    making important business decisions. While Farm Bureau supports
    this technology and the potential opportunities it offers for
    farmers and ranchers, we are also concerned about the data
    collected from UAS and the privacy and security of the data. It
    is critical that data collected via UAS remain under the
    ownership and control of the farmer and is not available to
    government agencies or others without the farmer's permission.
        Section 9 would provide immediate relief to the aquaculture
    industry by reinstating the force and effect of the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Services' statutory depredation order for the
    double-crested cormorant with respect to freshwater aquaculture
    facilities. In response to a legal challenge against the
    Service, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    remanded the 2014 Aquaculture Depredation Order for the
    cormorant. The cormorant is a large water bird that feeds
    mainly on fish. As you can imagine, commercial fish ponds that
    are stocked at high densities make them highly susceptible to
    bird predation particularly by the cormorant. Predator control
    is vital to the success of American aquaculture.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to continuing to
    work with the Committee in securing enactment of this
    critically important legislation. I would be happy to answer
    any questions that you or the Committee may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yates follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much, Mr. Yates. We
    appreciate your testimony.
        Now, Mr. Lyons.

      STATEMENT OF JIM LYONS, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN
     PROGRESS, LECTURER, YALE SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
                                STUDIES

        Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Jim
    Lyons. I am currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for
    American Progress and a lecturer at the Yale School of Forestry
    and Environmental Studies. Previously, I have served as Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management in the
    Department of the Interior under President Obama and as USDA
    Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment under
    President Clinton. And from 1985 to 1993 I was a member of the
    House Committee on Agriculture staff, where I had the
    opportunity to help lead the effort to shape both the
    Conservation and Forestry Titles of the 1990 Farm Bill.
        I bring up the 1990 Farm Bill because I believe it was a
    groundbreaking effort that expanded the scope of our
    conservation toolkit. Since then, through successive Farm Bills
    I believe we have demonstrated the important relationship
    between farmers, ranchers, and Federal conservation agencies
    and the power of their partnership.
        Voluntary conservation made possible by the technical and
    financial assistance by Federal conservation agencies and their
    State and private partners have maintained and restored the
    health of millions of acres of farm and ranchlands, and
    conserved fragile soils, wetlands, water quality, and wildlife
    habitat.
        We continue to depend on the Nation's farmers and ranchers
    not only for our food and fiber, but also for the care of our
    lands and natural resources. As Conservationist Aldo Leopold
    described in 1939, ``It is the American farmer who must weave
    the greater part of the rug on which America stands.'' Nearly
    fourscore years later, Leopold's comments remain very valid.
        American farmers and ranchers remain conservation leaders,
    and we have an obligation to the American people to ensure that
    we protect and promote the public-private partnership that has
    helped protect our capacity to produce safe and affordable food
    and fiber, and conserve America's soil, water, air, and
    wildlife resources.
        The ACRE Act is an interesting amalgam of bills. I will do
    my best to address them today, but I implore you to work
    together in a thoughtful, bipartisan approach to build on the
    foundation of prior Farm Bills to improve efforts to weave the
    rug of conservation of which Leopold has spoken.
        Given the limited time, I will comment on just a few
    sections of the bill.
        On Section 3, the exemption from certain notice
    requirements and penalties under CERCLA, I understand that this
    would simply codify an exemption from these requirements that
    had been implemented since 2008. Minimizing the burden on
    farmers for collecting and reporting necessary data makes
    sense, and I strongly support that objective.
        I hunt and have hunted waterfowl on Maryland's eastern
    shore, so I understand the intent of Section 5 to further
    clarify the definition of normal agricultural activities under
    the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But I would suggest, Mr.
    Chairman, that it might be better to address this definitional
    issue administratively, rather than setting a one-size-fits-all
    standard and statute. This should be done in collaboration with
    the NRCS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and relevant
    State Fish and Wildlife agencies.
        With regard to Section 6, the Congress has made several
    attempts in recent years to find common ground in avoiding
    duplication, providing clarity, and reducing the burden
    associated with data collection and reporting under FIFRA and
    the Clean Water Act. Efficiency in data collection reporting is
    important, provided the intent of both FIFRA and the Clean
    Water Act are met.
        In places like Maryland, where I currently reside, this can
    be particularly problematic given the potential for pesticide
    applications to inadvertently impact waterways and the
    Chesapeake Bay. Simply having a pesticide registered under
    FIFRA, in my opinion, does not obviate the need for ensuring
    the Clean Water Act requirements are met where the potential
    for impacting water resources occurs.
        While I understand the purpose of Section 7, the Farmer
    Identity Protection Act, and the concern of livestock
    producers, I think it is important the data related to these
    activities be collected in a manner that permits research and
    analysis to benefit producers, help reduce operator costs,
    improve the efficiency of livestock operations, as well as
    protect public safety and the environment.
        Regarding Section 8, aerial photography and assessments by
    their very nature are intended to cover large landscapes,
    making it difficult, if not nearly impossible, to gather
    permission from all those owners and operators who may be in
    the area that is the focus of these aerial surveys. Aerial
    surveys are an important tool for wildlife managers and
    research scientists whose studies can improve management
    practices that can benefit farmers and ranchers, as well as
    wildlife and the environment.
        Finally, reaffirming the respective authorities of the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service and APHIS to work together to address
    animal damage issues can do no harm, but I would suggest that a
    change in the law is not warranted. The issue raised by Mr.
    Miyamoto with regard to eagles and sheep losses is a very
    serious concern, I am well aware of that, but it seems to be
    more of an issue of providing adequate resources to the Fish
    and Wildlife Service to do its job, rather than reaffirming in
    statute that APHIS and the Service do their jobs.
        Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee.
    Appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts today.
        I would close by emphasizing one thing, and that is data
    and information are important management tools that can improve
    farm and ranch operations, inform new and better approaches for
    achieving conservation goals, and ensure that taxpayer dollars
    are used efficiently and effectively. That is, data are an
    asset, not just a bludgeon. If we can focus on opportunities to
    work together, agriculture, fish and wildlife, public health
    and safety, and our environment will benefit.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
    testimony. Thank you all.
        We will now have a round of 5 minutes of questions, and I
    will defer my time to Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was listening, Mr. Miyamoto, to your opening statement. I
    chaired this Committee for a number of years, and the one
    thing, particularly during the last Administration, as a
    general rule, the Democrats want more regulation, and they want
    that regulation to come from Washington, not from locally or
    from the States. I remember going over the WOTUS rule. That was
    at a time when, and I think, Mr. Yates, you will remember this,
    that was the No. 1 concern, I think, for the Farm Bureau at one
    time. This was the big issue.
        Now, my State is an arid State, and we can just envision if
    the regulation that was put forth by the Obama administration
    had become a reality. It wouldn't be long until our panhandle
    would be a wetland, and we were fully aware of that. There
    would be another army of bureaucrats crawling all over our
    farms and ranches in Oklahoma.
        So, anyway, that is the overall thing. And, by the way,
    there was one really good program, it was called the
    Partnership Program that came from Fish and Wildlife, and this
    happened actually in the last Administration, where they
    actually came out, in my case, before confirmation of the Fish
    and Wildlife Director, I said I want you to make two trips out
    to Oklahoma and talk about the partnership and the people who
    are the farmers and the ranchers on the ground; and they came
    back with the conclusion that they are just as concerned or
    more concerned than the bureaucracy here in Washington is on
    what they want to do with the land, and they were very
    impressed by the fact--and it just stands to reason, but a lot
    of bureaucrats don't understand this, if you own a piece of
    property, you want it to be clean, you want it to conform. This
    is to your financial and to your benefit.
        Mr. Miyamoto, when I look at the list of regulations, I
    come to the conclusion that there is the idea in Washington
    that you have to have someone here looking out after your
    property because you are not going to do a good job yourself.
    You, yourself, acknowledge that some of these regulations
    targeted in the bill were of no environmental benefit, so it is
    unclear as to why would the opposition be opposition to them,
    other than loss of control. Unfortunately, it is our State
    partners that are then forced to comply with Federal mandates
    coming with no financial support, so it comes back to unfunded
    mandates.
        So, I ask you the question can you speak to the burdens
    that you and your fellow State agencies face when Washington or
    the courts hand down unfunded mandates?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for the
    question. The issue of unfunded mandates and delegated
    authority for State Departments of Agriculture is something
    that we have to think about frequently. We do carry out FIFRA
    regulations as a State Department of Agriculture in Wyoming, so
    this issue of pesticide regulation really does fall on the
    Department of Ag.
        There are other examples of many other programs that we
    have delegated authority from the Federal Government to
    implement regulations in the State. As an example, within the
    Wyoming Department of Agriculture, we also undertake food
    safety measures from FDA and we have Federal Meat Inspection
    Act under the Food Safety Inspection Service, and we have to
    make sure that we can do a good job of carrying out our
    regulatory obligations.
        So, when it comes to budgeting and unfunded mandates, we
    want to do a good job to carry out these Federal statutes in
    our State and uphold our end of the bargain, but it does become
    a challenge from time to time when there are so many of them.
    If they become duplicative, then it becomes impossible.
        Senator Inhofe. And I really think that this bill addresses
    a long list of them, and I have taken the time, as other
    cosponsors have, of going over and analyzing each one.
        I don't want to run out of time here. Mr. Yates, last week,
    in Senator Rounds' subcommittee hearing on the FARM Act, a
    colleague on the other side accused the Trump EPA of failing to
    provide farmers and ranchers with the guidance they need to
    comply with the recent court decisions that now requires ag
    industries to report to the EPA and the Coast Guard emissions
    from animal waste.
        Your testimony states that there is no scientific consensus
    on how to measure these emissions, and it is worth noting that
    the Obama EPA believed that this information wasn't needed and
    defended the Bush era policy. So, since you believe there is
    not the scientific consensus, do you think the EPA would be
    able to develop the guidance that is really needed here?
        Mr. Yates. Well, ultimately, that is something that
    livestock operators are going to need from the EPA and, to
    date, they have not been able to receive appropriate guidance
    that would give them the tools that they need to effectively
    measure those emissions on their livestock operation. I know
    there are a couple models that have been referenced. Texas A&M,
    I believe, and I believe there is another university that has
    developed a model.
        Again, the application of those models to a particular
    livestock operation is inaccurate, at best, it is a guess, so I
    think if we are going to be requiring livestock operators to
    report these emissions, they need to have the tools and the
    guidance to be able to effectively measure what it is that they
    are being required to report.
        Senator Inhofe. I think it is interesting that back during
    the Obama administration that is pretty much what their feeling
    was, too, at that time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Before I ask a couple questions of our
    witnesses, I just want to note, if I could, Mr. Chairman and
    colleagues, for the record that during our hearing this
    morning, students across our Country are walking out of the
    classrooms for a brief while to mourn the loss of the victims
    of the Parkland shooting and to demand action to prevent gun
    violence in the future. I just want to acknowledge their
    efforts and to say that I share in solidarity with them.
        First question I have for our witnesses, again, we
    appreciate you being here. Thank you very much for your
    testimony and for your willingness to stay on and answer some
    questions, and maybe even some questions for the record.
        As you all know, and I think Mr. Lyons may have stated
    this, there is a longstanding tradition of bipartisan
    collaboration on Farm Bills and a lot of other agriculture
    legislation. I hope that this Committee and I hope that this
    Congress can uphold that tradition this year.
        With that said, based on what you just heard from your
    colleagues, what are the areas where you see agreement among
    the three of you? What are the areas where you see agreement
    among the three of you, please.
        Mr. Lyons, do you want to lead us off?
        Mr. Lyons. I think, first of all, Senator Carper, we agree
    that reducing the burden on agriculture producers of data
    collection and providing information is important, but we do
    need data and information, so gathering that in the most
    efficient and effective way possible is important.
        I agree with the concern about harassment and the desire to
    make sure that the information is managed properly to help
    achieve its intended purpose; to help improve programs, to help
    improve the operations of producers, to help reduce costs both
    for them and to the taxpayer.
        And I would like to think that we all agree that we need to
    meet not only the objectives of benefiting producers, but we
    also have an obligation as a community to protect public health
    and safety and the environment, and that is certainly an
    important part of why these statutes exist.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Yates and Mr. Miyamoto, do you agree with anything he
    said?
        Mr. Yates. For the record?
        Senator Carper. Yes.
        Mr. Yates. For the record, Senator Carper, I am pleased to
    agree with Jim on the issues that he brought up. I think
    farmers and ranchers across the Country are the best stewards
    of our land and I think we want to work collectively within the
    regulatory fabric that we have to live and work in to produce
    the best results not only for farms and ranches, but for the
    environment. So, again, I would agree with Jim's comments on
    this.
        Senator Carper. Good. Would you like to add any other
    thoughts of your own about what are some other areas you might
    see for agreement?
        Mr. Yates. Well, I think, across the board, farmers and
    ranchers, when we go out to the field, I know President Duvall
    was in a couple weeks ago at your least hearing on
    environmental regulation.
        Senator Carper. Zippy Duvall.
        Mr. Yates. Zippy Duvall, yes, sir. He appreciated the
    commentary that you and he had at that hearing. But the No. 1
    thing that we hear from our farmers is concerns over red tape
    and regulations, in addition to a number of other issues that
    keep farmers up at night, and I think this bill represents a
    good start at looking at identifying duplications of
    regulations and identifying opportunities to streamline those
    to ensure that the regulations are commonsense and they make
    the most sense for the folks that have to live and work under
    the guidance of those rules and regulations.
        Senator Carper. I quote my parents almost every day of my
    life, something that they said, words of wisdom that they
    imparted to my sister and me when we were kids growing up. My
    dad was famous for saying, ``Just use some common sense'' to my
    sister and me, and he said it a lot. He did not say it so
    kindly.
        All right, Mr. Miyamoto. Just come back to what Jim has
    said and Ryan has said. Anything that you agree with that they
    have said and anything you would like to add, other possible
    areas of agreement? Go ahead.
        Mr. Miyamoto. Thank you, Senator. From what I heard today,
    there is a lot more agreement than there is disagreement. If
    there was one thing that I could certainly identify
    specifically, it would be the CERCLA piece and addressing that.
    So you are aware, I think that the aspects that are approached
    in this bill that addressed duplicative regulations and then
    sometimes regulations aimed in the wrong direction is a good
    start for us and would help me do a better job at home to not
    only regulate the agricultural community, but also to advocate
    for it. Because I kind of have that dual role and take it very
    seriously.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        I have about 15 seconds left. I am going to have some
    questions for the record. I wish I could give them in person,
    but we will submit those for the record. Again, we appreciate
    very much your presence today and your contributions. Thank
    you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
        Mr. Miyamoto, I will start with you, Director. FIFRA
    established an effective and comprehensive regulatory----
        Senator Carper. Could I interrupt?
        Senator Ernst. Oh, yes.
        Senator Carper. I apologize. I am going to go speak on the
    floor on the banking bill right now. I apologize.
        But could I just ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record--I have a unanimous consent request that somewhere in
    this pile right here, and I would ask permission to submit for
    the record.
        And I apologize for interrupting you.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection. And had you attended
    the University of Wyoming, you wouldn't have----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Let the record show I was wait-listed
    there.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. As were our sons. They had to go to MIT and
    William & Mary.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Thank you. I apologize.
        Senator Ernst. No, you're fine, Senator Carper.
        OK, Director, we will start over again. As you know, FIFRA
    established an effective and comprehensive regulatory web to
    provide pesticide-related environmental and public health
    protections, and this regulatory system is pretty darn rigorous
    in examining environmental data and health exposure assessments
    for pesticide products.
        Because this process specifically examines a product's
    potential impact on water, additional permitting requirements
    under the Clean Water Act are duplicative. We have talked a
    little bit about duplication of effort, and this will
    significantly increase the cost for State permitting
    authorities and pesticide users.
        So, we have already discussed the duplication of effort,
    the unfunded mandates, but if you could, could you please
    describe--let's go a little bit further into the weeds--the
    challenges that State Departments of Agriculture face when
    dealing with duplicative regulatory requirements, whether it is
    the costs associated with the paperwork shuffle, the timelines?
    Could you delve into that so that we know exactly what our
    State Departments of Ag go through?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for the
    question. It is something that we struggle with. Initially,
    when the NPDES requirements for pesticide applications came to
    light, which was eight or 9 years ago now, we had to do a
    series of workshops around the State with all of our certified
    pesticide applicators to inform them of this process, and it
    was quite an undertaking.
        It was a good collaboration; we used our State Department
    of Environmental Quality, EPA Region 8 was also represented.
    But there was a lot of training that went into how our
    applicators would become compliant with NPDES permitting
    requirements that were never aimed in that direction.
        So, initially there was a whole bunch of education, and
    even now, as people get recertified for pesticide application,
    we have training elements that are part of our training program
    that informs them of all of the steps that they have to take to
    get their NPDES permits and what the liabilities associated
    with those permits are.
        I think you quoted or you stated very eloquently that FIFRA
    handles the regulation of pesticides. We do that as a State
    Department of Agriculture, and, really, both NPDES and our
    regulation of pesticide applications boil down to the approved
    label by EPA. And if you follow that label that is attached to
    that product, you will be in compliance. Other than that, you
    are just shuffling paper.
        Senator Ernst. Very good. And that is a concern, too, the
    duplication of effort. The costs associated with that, what is
    a ballpark figure, to be qualified, and might be to the State
    Department as well?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, if it is OK with you,
    I will have to research that a little bit. I am unsure of what
    DEQ spends on their NPDES program specific to pesticides. I
    know for us, the training and certification program that we, as
    a State, put into our program, not Federal funds, but State
    funds, is about half a million dollars.
        Senator Ernst. OK. And, bottom line, it boiled down to, you
    said, if they just follow the instructions on the label,
    correct?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Correct.
        Senator Ernst. Correct. OK.
        And Director and Mr. Yates, both of your testimoneys made
    pretty compelling cases as to why the CERCLA reporting
    requirement is unnecessary and why Congress never intended for
    emergency air emissions to apply to day-to-day practices on ag
    operations. Do you think the documentation and process under
    CERCLA for reporting routine low-level animal manure emissions
    on a farm to the Coast Guard's National Response Center is the
    best use of Federal, State, and local tax dollars?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, again, thank you for
    the question. When I hear the term Superfund, that brings a lot
    to mind, and the expense associated with cleanup of Superfund
    undoubtedly is expensive. I have no idea what those expenses
    might be.
        But when it comes to CERCLA, I am quite certain that both
    EPA and the Coast Guard have better things to do with limited
    resources to address those sites that really are hazardous and
    a threat to human health. I don't even know how to begin to
    tell producers how to estimate emissions from an individual
    head of livestock, so not only do I think that it is not, the
    regulation, aimed in the right direction; I don't have anything
    to tell my producers about how to accurately comply. I can't
    ethically give them a formula that I think that they could
    defend.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you.
        Mr. Yates.
        Mr. Yates. Certainly, I would be in agreement. I think EPA
    has recognized that low-level continuous emissions of ammonia
    and hydrogen sulfide from livestock are not releases that
    Congress intended to be regulated under CERCLA; and I think
    when you start looking at the numbers, the numbers that we have
    received over the last 8 years, the annual phone calls to the
    National Response Center have averaged about 28,000 reports a
    year for the last 8 years.
        Looking at an additional 200,000 reports from farmers and
    ranchers, I don't think it is a great use of taxpayer dollars.
    Frankly, I think the NRC really should be focused on its true
    mission, and not receiving reports from farmers and ranchers
    trying to be in compliance with CERCLA.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you very much. I struggle to
    understand how we would measure some of those emissions from
    the rancher and farmer standpoint, but also what exactly is the
    Coast Guard going to do when they respond? I don't think that
    is spelled out anywhere.
        Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Ernst.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Lyons, welcome. It is always nice to have a Marylander
    here, so I am glad to see you.
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cardin. I appreciate your testimony. And I just
    really, first, want to underscore the point that you made about
    farmers and the importance to our environment that farmers
    understand, that has certainly been true in Maryland,
    recognizing that a clean environment is in their best interest
    and part of their responsibility, as they see it, is to leave
    the land in better shape for the next generation, which
    includes the environment and clean water, et cetera, so I thank
    you for making that point.
        I want to sort of delve into the pesticide issue and
    insecticides, and the impact on the Chesapeake Bay, impact on
    clean water. We have made a real commitment to clean up the
    Chesapeake Bay, and all stakeholders are part of the process,
    including our farmers. They practice the best practices in
    order to minimize the concerns of pollution getting into the
    Bay. We very much appreciate all the work that they do.
        I want to talk about the FIFRA statute and its regulations
    as to whether it is duplicative of what EPA would be doing in
    regards to protecting our environment from insecticides, and
    get your view as to whether in fact this is duplicative or
    whether there is a different concern in regards to water
    quality.
        Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to
    address that, and I want to thank you for your leadership
    particularly in helping to protect the Chesapeake Bay, in spite
    of efforts to cut funding for the important programs there, so
    really appreciate that.
        I actually don't think that the duplication that is
    presented here between the Clean Water Act and FIFRA is
    completely accurate. FIFRA is designed to regulate the use and
    application of pesticides in general, and set standards, and
    certainly it sets standards for applications in relation to
    aqueous situations, in addition to land applications. But,
    really, the Clean Water Act serves a different purpose; it is
    really designed to protect our Nation's water quality by
    minimizing discharges of pesticides and other pollutants.
        So, I think, particularly in a place like the Chesapeake
    Bay, where we have a high water table and much of the landscape
    is vulnerable to stormwater runoff and other impacts, that the
    provisions of the Clean Water Act and the requirements that are
    associated with it provide an added element of assurance that
    pesticides are not going to get into the waterways and have
    adverse impacts on those water bodies.
        Senator Cardin. I thank you for that because the FIFRA
    statute deals with labeling, deals with other issues and the
    Clean Water Act deals with the quality of water in our Nation,
    so they have different standards to judge the regulatory
    activities. And we know that farming activities is the largest
    single source of pollutants entering the Bay. It is not the
    largest increase that comes from runoff, but the largest single
    source is from farming, so, therefore, it is critically
    important we try to minimize the best that we can, and the
    Clean Water Act certainly has been important in doing that.
    Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, I certainly do, Senator. I think it played
    an important role and I think we are seeing the benefits of
    that. I might mention, if I could actually put in the record, a
    recent Washington Post opinion by the editorial board, March
    7th, that says why the Chesapeake Bay is the best in the world.
    It talks to the improvements that have been made over many
    years of effort to improving water quality and the health of
    the Chesapeake Bay, and I think it is a reflection of the fact
    that proper application of tools. I see the Clean Water Act as
    a tool for addressing water quality concerns as well as other
    standards, is important.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Always appreciate the opportunity of
    including the Chesapeake Bay in our record.
        Let me ask you one last question, which sometimes the
    reason for trying to get an exemption from the Clean Water Act
    deals with emergency situations where you have urgent issues
    that need to be dealt with quickly because of the health
    concerns that are brought about by some insects or invasions,
    things like that.
        Do you see the Clean Water Act regulations and the current
    applications of the law inconsistent with emergency response?
        Mr. Lyons. No, absolutely not, Senator. In fact, EPA
    developed a program to deal with emergency situations. I mean,
    zika would be a great example of that. Under those
    circumstances, an applicator can perform its pest control
    activities without having to wait for EPA approval for the
    application, so there is no inconsistency there.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
    calling this hearing today and I appreciate all of the
    witnesses coming to share your time and your expertise with us
    on these important issues.
        This bill encompasses a variety of priorities that I and
    many members of this Committee have labored over for, in some
    cases, many years, and I am glad to see the Committee
    recognizes that these commonsense solutions do need to move
    forward.
        The ACRE Act represents relief for ag producers from
    burdensome regulations, relief from regulations that do not
    offer more environmental protection and relief from regulations
    that have become duplicative and unnecessarily tie the hands of
    our producers.
        I am especially pleased to see included in this legislation
    policies that I have championed in this Committee for many
    years, and this includes addressing what I believe is a
    duplicative permitting of pesticides under FIFRA and the Clean
    Water Act. I would remind my colleagues that this is an issue I
    agreed with the Obama administration's EPA on, and it continues
    to be a concern in farm country.
        Additionally, the ACRE Act also includes my legislation to
    provide regulatory relief for farmers and ranchers with above-
    ground, on-farm fuel storage. Intended for major oil
    refineries, the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure,
    or the SPCC, Rule would affect the amount of fuel producers can
    store on their land. And I certainly appreciate that the last
    WRDA bill included flexibility for producers, but more does
    need to be done.
        Finally, the ACRE Act includes the Fair Agricultural
    Reporting Method, or the FARM Act, which would provide greater
    certainty for ag producers by eliminating the burdensome
    reporting requirements for animal waste emissions under CERCLA.
        As of this morning, there are 37 cosponsors, Democrats and
    Republicans, on this stand-alone legislation. Our farm and
    ranch communities are in tough economic climates, and this bill
    before us does cut through the cumbersome red tape and enables
    our ag producers to continue to support their families and also
    to feed this hungry world.
        Director, it is my understanding that reporting animal
    waste emissions under CERCLA provides no environmental benefit.
    Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I do. We have operated
    regulatory frameworks for agriculture for quite some time now.
    The Clean Air Act is available to address air quality concerns.
    CERCLA was never a part of this until very recently, and the
    simple act of reporting does nothing to address any
    environmental concern.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. Can you please explain to the
    Committee the current regulatory framework livestock producers
    must comply under, and specifically under the bill before us,
    the ACRE Act and, subsequently, the FARM Act, do certain
    providers still have to comply with EPCRA reporting
    requirements?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, they do. In confined
    animal feeding operations, they would still have a duty to
    report under EPCRA and comply with the regulatory requirements
    there.
        Senator Fischer. So, just to be clear, producers and our
    large animal feeding operations, they still must comply with
    EPCRA, the Clean Water Act, and State regulations?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, that is correct.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Director, in your testimony, you discuss the duplicative
    permitting process of pesticides under FIFRA and the Clean
    Water Act, and this process creates unnecessary resource
    burdens and challenges for pesticides, registrants, and users,
    including the agriculture community. This is why I have
    cosponsored legislation that would clarify the intent of the
    law and eliminate the Clean Water Act permit requirement. Can
    you please speak to the impact on farmers that are subjected to
    acquire a Clean Water Act permit?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, again, thank you for
    the question. I can speak to that to a degree. We have been
    operating our pesticide application regulatory program in
    conjunction with NPDES since 2009 or 2010, and it has just
    required a whole bunch more training. In that entire amount of
    time, I do not believe that our State partners at the
    Department of Environmental Quality have regulated pesticide
    applicators under NPDES permit requirements, meaning I don't
    think they have taken regulatory action against any of those
    applicators.
        We, on the other hand, have taken regulatory action against
    applicators that are not following the appropriate label. So,
    in essence, what it has become for us is just an exercise that
    we go through; make sure that you have your certified pesticide
    applicator's license, make sure that you are in line with
    either your major or minor NPDES pesticide general permit, make
    sure you have everything in order, and then go out and do your
    work. But when it comes to the regulation, FIFRA and the
    Department of Ag is where that resides.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter for the record
    a number of letters of support and written testimony from
    groups who support various elements of the ACRE Act, including
    the National Agriculture Aviation Association, Wyoming Stock
    Growers Association, Agriculture Retailers Association,
    American Mosquito Control Association, National Pest Management
    Association, which includes more than 7,000 member companies.
        Without objection, they are admitted to the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Miyamoto, across the Country, farmers
    and ranchers acknowledge some of their yield of crops, fish,
    livestock are going to be lost to predators of many varieties,
    and you made comment about that in your testimony. Farmer and
    ranchers depend on management tools like permits to eliminate
    predators to keep their livestock safe and to prevent excessive
    losses.
        In Wyoming, ranchers lose newborn calves, lambs to ravens,
    to eagles. Indiana residents grapple with damage to
    transportation infrastructure from beavers. In Delaware, the
    State Wildlife Service helps to prevent damage to coastal salt
    marsh habitat from geese, other migratory waterfowl.
        Could you just talk a little bit about the important role
    that permits play in predator management and the need for the
    agency to process permit applications efficiently?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think that what
    permits provide in this whole discussion of depredation and
    damage caused by it is balance. The permit process allows the
    regulating agencies to keep track of what is going on out in
    the landscape. It requires our producers to go in and seek
    permission for a certain action, to remove or relocate
    depredating what they would consider nuisance species. But the
    permitting process makes sure that is all accounted for and so
    that we can manage to an objective.
        Senator Barrasso. I want to ask Mr. Yates if you have any
    additional thoughts on that and what you have seen in terms of
    getting the permits to deal with these issues.
        Mr. Yates. Certainly, Senator. Thank you for the question.
    Controlling wildlife damage is obviously a critical factor in
    maintaining the success of American agriculture, and permits
    are important. One example that we cite is the issue of the
    double-crested cormorant. Many of our commercial fish ponds are
    stocked at very high densities, from 2,000 to, say, 60,000
    catfish per acre, and for bait fish it is 50,000 to almost
    200,000 bait fish per acre.
        When it comes to the depredation issues with the cormorant,
    I know a 2014 estimate for the Mississippi Delta Region show
    that 18 million to 200 million fingerlings per winter are lost
    to bird depredation. A 1996 USDA survey shows that bird
    depredation were responsible for 37 percent of catfish losses
    in the aquaculture industry.
        So, certainly, the issue of permitting for depredation for
    the cormorants is a critical issue that I know our folks in the
    aquaculture industry are looking for Congress to provide
    immediate input and oversight on this important issue.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Miyamoto, we talked about trying to
    give relief for farmers and ranchers in weed and pest districts
    and others who face duplicative permitting requirements. That
    has been part of the questioning we have had from both sides of
    the aisle here today.
        These permitting requirements are imposed, specifically in
    weed and pest districts, by the National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System. It requires one permit under the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the FIFRA Act, but
    another under the Clean Water Act to apply a pesticide, even if
    the pesticide is already approved by the one Act. It just seems
    that our effort is supported by aviation groups, agriculture
    producers, public officials like sanitary districts, mosquito
    control groups.
        And I have a letter that I am going to introduce from the
    Coalition to talk about that specific thing.
        Without objection, that will be submitted for the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. The Department of Agriculture in Wyoming
    has the responsibility for predator and pest control, the Weed
    and Pest Council, and human health priorities. You oversee
    this. Can you talk about the importance of pest and invasive
    species control, especially in a State with so much public
    land?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, I think that Wyoming has a big
    job when it comes to controlling invasive species and for
    predator control, both. We have so many ties to Endangered
    Species Act and other considerations that there is a lot to do.
    When it comes to our predator districts and our weed and pest
    districts out there in those local communities, they have more
    job than they have time. Anything that we can do to streamline
    the process, as long as we are not harming anything on the
    environmental side of the equation, I think we should pursue
    that.
        This example that you bring up of FIFRA as opposed to the
    Clean Water Act, NPDES permitting for pesticide applicators, in
    our experience at home, simply isn't necessary. We do it
    because we have to, but it doesn't change the application on
    the ground.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Yates, Section 7 and 8 of the ACRE
    Act deal with the issue of farmer safety and privacy. Could you
    please elaborate on why issues such as the disclosure of
    sensitive information of the location of certain farming
    operations or the aerial surveillance of farms by the Federal
    Government, why these are important and relevant issues to the
    agriculture community?
        Mr. Yates. Thanks, Senator. I think, like most Americans,
    farmers and ranchers are very sensitive about their privacy,
    sensitive and concerned about information about their
    operation. Many farmers, it is not just the mailing address of
    their business; many farmers and ranchers live in the location
    of their business. Having that information get out or having
    aggregate data about farmers in a region, a county, a State, is
    dangerous and concerning for farmers and ranchers. So, I think
    when we are looking at data, obviously, many of us have
    discussed the issues of how we can use data to be more
    effective in the work that we do.
        I think we should be mindful of that data and how that data
    can be used and who can access that data; and I think it is
    important in terms of oversight for this Committee to look at
    protecting the use of that date and ensuring that, if data is
    being requested from farmers and ranchers, that it is being
    done with their permission.
        Senator Barrasso. One last question, Mr. Yates, before I
    turn to Senator Boozman. The president of your organization, as
    we talked about, Mr. Zippy Duvall, was here and stated in his
    written testimony to our Committee in February, he said, ``Farm
    income is reduced about 50 percent compared to 5 years ago.''
    And he went on to say, ``But I assure you that regulatory costs
    have not gone down.''
        So, in your opinion, will the provisions in the ACRE Act
    help reduce some of this regulatory burden on farmers and
    ranchers, and improve their income, while at the same time
    protect the environment?
        Mr. Yates. The short answer to that is yes, Senator, I do
    believe that, and I think the bottom line is, as Congress and
    as Federal agencies look at rules and regulations, I think they
    should be looked at through a lens of is this effective, is
    this the best way to conduct business. When we are looking at
    the issue of FIFRA and the Clean Water Act, the bottom line is,
    is additional duplicative regulatory requirements going to
    provide for increased environmental protections on the ground?
    If the answer to that is no, then I think the ACRE Act does a
    great job in providing for streamlining and ensuring that
    regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers are minimized and
    are effective in providing for strong environmental compliance
    at the local level.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
    being late, late. I had a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing
    and then a Homeland Security, so I have good excuses. The
    problem is right now is there is just a lot going on up here,
    lots of stuff that is important, but positive stuff, so thank
    you all for being here and we do appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Miyamoto, the FIFRA established an effective and
    comprehensive regulatory web to provide pesticide-related
    environmental and public health protection. It is rigorous; it
    examines the environmental data, health exposure assessments
    for pesticide products. This process specifically examines the
    product's potential impact on water. Additional permit
    requirements under the Clean Water Act are duplicative and will
    entail significant costs for State permitting authorities and
    pesticide users.
        Could you please highlight some of the challenges that your
    Department faces when regulating some of the regulatory
    requirements?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for the
    question. Our experience in Wyoming has been that we have co-
    regulated under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act for eight or 9
    years now. In the beginning there was a whole bunch of
    education that we had to do with our certified pesticide
    applicators to make sure that they understood that they needed
    to hold not only their certified applicating license, but they
    also needed to hold an NPDES permit.
        I would argue that NPDES permits were designed for a
    completely different scenario, point source discharges, end-of-
    pipe type regulations, so it was difficult for us to come up
    with all of the right information that should be included in
    that application in order for them to get that permit.
        Today, it is part of our standard operating and we do it,
    but I don't think that it gives us a corresponding increase in
    environmental benefit. It is one of those things that we do
    because we have to.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you very much. Also, many
    feel that the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, reporting is
    unnecessary and was never intended to regulate agriculture. Can
    you talk about some of the environmentally based regulations
    that agriculture producers have to comply with and comment on
    CERCLA?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, specifically, I think
    the aim behind CERCLA, or, you know, at least one of the
    considerations of CERCLA was to look at emissions; and, for
    agriculture, that would be probably most relevant to confined
    animal feeding operations. And when it comes to confined animal
    feeding operations, the major regulatory law that is in place
    to guard against environmental damage from confining animals
    and feeding them would be the Clean Water Act.
        I have worked extensively in trying to remediate those
    impacts, basically, relocating corrals and feeding areas to
    where we can write comprehensive nutrient management plans that
    allay a lot of the concern of concentrating all of these
    pollutants in one area and allowing them either to volatilize
    into the air or to get into the water. So I think there is a
    framework in place and Mr. Lyon mentioned NRCS, and they are a
    good partner of ours and they help us with implementing
    comprehensive nutrient management plans for all of these areas
    that address these concerns.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
        Mr. Yates, a criticism of the EPA under the previous
    Administration was the Agency's disconnect with rural America.
    Many hardworking Americans in rural States feel that they
    didn't and still really feel like their voice is marginalized.
    Time and again I heard from my constituents who described a
    ``gotcha'' attitude from Federal agencies. Instead of working
    with stakeholders and industry to develop and implement rules
    and regulations, the Federal Government would go it alone,
    without fully understanding how the rules would affect
    hardworking Americans.
        Can you explain the importance of the Federal Government to
    work hand-in-hand with the stakeholders as we develop rules and
    regulations? And then, also, do you believe that the current
    Administration has put an emphasis in cooperative federalism?
        Mr. Yates. Senator Boozman, thank you for the question. I
    would suggest that it is critical, be it in our western States
    that have a large abundance of Federal lands, that proper
    coordination and consultation with Federal land management
    agencies is vital to ensuring that the proper decisions are
    made that make the most sense for the land. It certainly goes
    without saying that coordination between States, Federal
    Government, and end-users is ultimately going to provide for
    the best possible result moving forward in terms of complying
    with regulations.
        Ultimately, I think the more interaction the Federal
    agencies have with folks at the local level, the better results
    you are going to have. Certainly, there have been criticisms
    from one Administration to another about do we have the best
    relationship, are they engaging with local stakeholders.
        I would suggest that with this Administration,
    Administrator Pruitt, we have had a fantastic working
    relationship. I know they have a lot of work to do and I would
    like to certainly report that relationship is a positive one
    and we continue to strive to identify more opportunities to
    work hand-in-hand with EPA to identify commonsense solutions to
    the issues that are facing American farmers and ranchers.
        Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank all of you. I appreciate you coming in today. I think
    we share with all the witnesses, and really all of us on this
    Committee and in the Senate, that we realize how important our
    Nation's farmers and ranchers are, and we don't want to
    overburden with regulations. But we also want to ensure, as
    Americans, that they have the right to privacy like so many of
    us do.
        When I was over in the House I introduced a bill called the
    Farmer's Privacy Act. This was in reaction to a situation that
    occurred in my State of West Virginia, where a poultry farmer
    was surveilled by the EPA--we are not talking about giant
    operations here, we are talking two or three houses--by the EPA
    and then fined accordingly, or investigated. It just struck me
    that the EPA, we found out later, had rented a small aircraft
    to surveil the small farms in the eastern portion of our
    States.
        I raised the point, even though it is difficult to get from
    point A to point B sometimes because of the mountains that we
    have, that we were violating that farmer's rights, and it just
    felt too intrusive to me. So, part of what is included in this
    bill is that privacy provisions.
        I am wondering if you, in Wyoming, have had any of these
    same kind of circumstances where you have had aerial
    surveillance without permission or if this is an issue in other
    parts of the Country. So, if you want to start, Mr. Miyamoto.
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for the
    question. We have experienced similar type of interest from
    mostly our special interest groups that have targeted
    individual ranchers and then would like to undermine their
    efforts to conduct successful business.
        As a regulatory agency myself, I can tell you that we have
    been able to successfully regulate farms and ranchers in
    Wyoming without aerially surveilling them. We take that
    obligation fairly seriously, but I think it can be done, and
    probably should be done, face-to-face.
        Senator Capito. Right. Right.
        Does anybody else have any comments on that? I don't know
    if you heard anything at the Farm Bureau, Mr. Yates.
        Mr. Yates. Senator, thank you. And thank you for your work
    on this important legislation. Again, as I mentioned in my
    testimony, the use of UAS in precision agriculture is a great
    tool. Many of our farmers are employing drones and drone
    technology.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Yates. But, again, I think the broader concern for our
    members is the use of those tools in providing for surveillance
    of farms and farm operations without the consent of the farmer
    or the landowner; and I think that ultimately, if those tools
    are going to be used, we need to make sure that we ensure that
    private property rights and privacy are taken into account and
    that farmers provide their permission for the use of that
    technology by a Federal agency or an outside organization.
        Senator Capito. And that is the substance of my bill, and I
    want to thank the Chairman for including that in there.
        I want to ask another question. We had two things happen,
    two visits I had most recently, one from a beef farmer in our
    State in conjunction with Trout Unlimited. And I think
    sometimes the misconception that our farmers want to be in
    opposition of environmental stewardship is just a misplaced
    concept, but they don't have the resources or the expertise to
    really move forward with what would be the best methods to go
    forward.
        In this case, Trout Unlimited had partnered with the beef
    farmer to give him the resources to be able to clean up the
    stream and now it is a major trout stream in our area. So the
    landowner, obviously, has the benefit of that, along with
    others who want to recreate there. So it has a mutual benefit.
        I would just ask, the partnerships that are developed, we
    also had the Wildlife Resources Foundation were just in our
    State, wildlife folks were just in, same kind of partnerships
    that are occurring. Are you finding that is what is happening
    around in Wyoming, that the private sector and the recreational
    industry that revolves around using our land and fisheries is
    the same sort? Because, obviously, in Wyoming tourism is very
    important as well.
        Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Chairman, Senator, strangely enough,
    years ago I spent a good deal of the early part of my career
    doing nothing but watershed planning on a collaborative and
    community-based standpoint, and I think we developed over two
    dozen different non-point-source watershed-based plans to
    address 303(d) listed in paired segments, and we did it exactly
    in the manner that you are talking about.
        What I learned through that experience is that local,
    voluntary, and incentive-based approaches for water quality
    improvement tend to work much, much better than any regulatory
    scheme that we could put in place to address those issues.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        And just a final comment, because I am out of time, but I
    know there is a portion of this bill that deals with predatory
    species. I would just mention that I hope--I am not sure that
    it does because I haven't asked the question yet. But we have a
    problem with coyotes in our area and our livestock, and I would
    hope that resources would be available to help our agricultural
    entities deal with this predator that is pretty sneaky and
    pretty tough to get. Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, I want to thank all of the members
    for being here. I appreciate the testimony of the three
    witnesses.
        Members may submit written questions. I know that Senator
    Carper has suggested he will be submitting some written
    questions, so I ask that you return those responses quickly.
        The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks.
        I again want to thank you all for your testimony on this
    important issue.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]