[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5872-S5873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. JOHANNS:
S. 3467. A bill to establish a moratorium on aerial surveillance
conducted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an
issue I have brought up before in the Senate that continues to trouble
me.
Whenever I meet with farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they often
raise concerns about regulatory overreach. I hear about the need for
agencies such as the EPA to provide a more predictable and commonsense
regulatory environment. So today I am introducing a bill that will do
exactly that. It stops the EPA's use of aerial surveillance of
[[Page S5873]]
agricultural operations for a period of 12 months--1 year.
Earlier this year, I began hearing about this issue from constituents
who are worried about privacy concerns. Thus, a few of my colleagues
and I wrote to Administrator Jackson in late May asking her several
questions about EPA's practice of flying over livestock operations and
taking pictures. We were curious about the scope of flights over
agriculture operations in Nebraska and around the country. We asked how
the agency selects targets for surveillance and whether any images of
residences, land, or buildings not subject to EPA regulation were being
captured.
Additionally, we asked a very fair question: We asked about the use
of the images, where are they stored, how are they used, who are they
shared with, and how long they would remain on file--all seemingly
straightforward, fair, basic questions.
Well, to say the least, EPA has been less than forthcoming about the
use of aerial surveillance. EPA has acknowledged aerial surveillance
activities in Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia. But despite repeated
requests, details concerning the national scope of this program and its
management by EPA headquarters have not been disclosed.
You see, I believe the American public deserves open,
straightforward, honest information about why EPA is flying over their
land--not just in Nebraska but across the country.
Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven they are
excellent stewards of the environment. They make their living from the
land, and they are very mindful of maintaining it and protecting it and
leaving it improved.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should ensure our waterways are clean
and our air is safe. So I want to be very clear: This legislation does
not affect EPA's ability to use traditional onsite inspections. But
given EPA's track record of ignorance about agriculture, if not
downright contempt for it, farmers and ranchers do not trust this
agency, and they sure as heck do not approve of EPA doing low-altitude
surveillance flights over citizens' private property.
So until EPA takes a more commonsense, transparent, open approach, we
need to step on the brakes. This bill simply does that. It places a 1-
year moratorium on EPA from using aerial surveillance. This will give
the agency time to come clean about its activities nationwide and make
the case that these flights are an appropriate use of agency authority
and taxpayer money.
Unless the EPA does that openly, the level of trust between farmers
and ranchers and the EPA will continue to erode. In the meantime,
passage of this legislation will help provide our farmers and our
ranchers and others in rural America with much needed regulatory
certainty.
I offered an amendment on this issue during the recent farm bill
debate. It got broad bipartisan support--56 votes. Ten of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle joined me in this effort, so it is not a
partisan issue.
I urge my colleagues to continue their support of this effort to
bring accountability and transparency to the Environmental Protection
Agency.
______