[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S7950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 1056. A bill to provide for farm-related exemptions from certain 
hazardous materials transportation requirements; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                  farm-related exemptions legislation

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to provide 
for farm-related exemptions for certain hazardous materials and 
transportation requirements. I send it to the desk and ask for its 
appropriate referral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be read twice and then referred 
to the appropriate committee.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill that will 
provide further regulatory relief for our farmers and ranchers.
  Let me give you some background on this issue. Earlier this year, the 
U.S. Department of Transportation published a rule under the HM-200 
docket which severely restricts the transportation of agricultural 
products classified as hazardous materials.
  This aspect of the HM-200 rule could cost the agricultural retail 
industry and the farm economy millions of dollars every year.
  Currently, States model their regulations concerning the transport of 
hazardous materials on Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations [HMR's]. 
However, some States with large farm economies provide exceptions from 
the State HMR's to the agricultural industry for the short-haul, 
intrastate, retail-to-farm transport of agricultural inputs.

  HM-200 would supersede all State HMR's, eliminate these exceptions, 
and apply Federal regulations to the short-haul, seasonal and mostly 
rural transport of farm products.
  The cost of this regulatory burden is estimated to be in excess of 
$12,300 a year for each agricultural retailer. Industrywide, it is 
estimated that it could cost the agricultural economy nearly $62 
million annually.
  We all want safe highways, safe food production, and a safe 
workplace, but when DOT, OSHA, and EPA regulations are stirred together 
in a pot, the stew can turn out to be quite rancid. Placing these 
Federal burdens on the backs of farmers and ranchers in Montana's rural 
communities, can mean the difference between flying or dying.
  HM-200 will require agricultural retailers to comply with time 
consuming and costly regulations that will not make our rural roads 
safer, but only increase the cost of doing business, cause confusion, 
and require unnecessary paperwork. These expenses will be passed on to 
farmers who already are burdened with slimming margins and ever higher 
cost of production.
  States and the agricultural community have an excellent track record 
for protecting the environment and keeping the public safe. The 
agricultural retail industry complies with numerous safety measures 
such as requiring all drivers to have Commercial Drivers Licenses 
[CDL's] drug and alcohol testing for drivers, HAZMAT handling 
experience, and so forth.
  Additionally, States which do not provide exceptions to their own 
HMR's for the agricultural community will face a new regulatory burden 
since these States rarely enforce the regulations that they have in 
place. The U.S. DOT has made it abundantly clear that they will expect 
all States to actively enforce HM-200, thereby making it an unfunded 
mandate.
  Despite petitions for reconsideration from the agricultural 
community--all of which have gone unanswered by DOT--HM-200 is due to 
be implemented on October 1, 1997--it was published in February of this 
year.
  This legislation seeks to delay implementation of HM-200 with respect 
to agricultural transports, until October 1, 1999, or until the 
reauthorization of Federal Hazardous Materials legislation. By allowing 
for a delay in HM-200 implementation, I believe we can properly address 
and examine the facts as they stand with regard to the need for this 
new regulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and help keep 
our agricultural community from having to bear a needless expense which 
has little safety value to the public.
                                 ______