[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 74 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2361-S2362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Ms. Sinema):
  S. 1475. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the issuance 
of permits under title V of that Act for certain emissions from 
agricultural production; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1475

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Livestock Regulatory 
     Protection Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITTING CERTAIN EMISSIONS FROM 
                   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

       Section 502(f) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661a(f)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as clauses 
     (i) through (iii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
       (2) in the undesignated matter following clause (iii) (as 
     so redesignated), by striking ``Approval of'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(B) No relief of obligation.--Approval of'';
       (3) by striking the subsection designation and heading and 
     all that follows through ``No partial'' in the matter 
     preceding clause (i) (as so redesignated) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(f) Prohibitions.--
       ``(1) Partial permit programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--No partial''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Certain emissions from agricultural production.--No 
     permit shall be issued under a permit program under this 
     title for any carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, water vapor, or 
     methane emissions resulting from biological processes 
     associated with livestock production.''.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Congresswoman from the 14th District of New York 
reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution. I think most Americans 
remember this socialist fantasy from when these Members introduced it 2 
years ago. It would be hard to forget a proposal with that pricetag. 
There was one think tank that analyzed the initial proposal and 
released a first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost 
between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Let me just repeat 
that--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.
  To put that number in perspective, our entire Federal budget in 
2019--our entire Federal budget--was well under $5 trillion. It would 
be interesting to learn where we are going to get that kind of money. A 
massive tax hike on the rich wouldn't get us close to paying for this, 
but I don't think I am the only one who isn't sure where we would get 
the money for this. I don't think the plan's authors have a very clear 
idea of that either. In fact, the entire Green New Deal resolution is 
notable for its complete lack of specificity.
  It proposes outlandish, impossible goals, like upgrading every single 
building in the United States--every single building--in the next 10 
years for maximum energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort, but 
it offers zero--zero--specifics for how we might actually accomplish 
them. I am not surprised, because there is no way to come close to 
accomplishing everything the Green New Deal's authors want to 
accomplish over the next decade without enormous economic pain.
  So often, when hearing the policies of the far left, environmental 
and otherwise, I am struck by how they leave people out of the 
equation. Now, of course, the individuals proposing these plans don't 
think they are leaving people out of the equation. The Green New Deal's 
authors are clearly under the impression that they are creating a 
paradise for American families--if paradise includes the government 
supervision and administration of just about every aspect of American 
life. Yet the reality is that, like so many utopian plans, most of the 
environmental left's sweeping ideas for remaking our society would have 
nightmarish effects in practice: higher energy costs, reduced economic 
growth, sharp increases in the cost of essential commodities like 
groceries, huge tax hikes, and job losses.
  Today, I want to talk about just one example of the damaging 
potential of environmental extremism, which has relevance for a bill I 
am introducing today.
  There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the 
environmental left to demonize the consumption of beef, and this 
tendency is creeping into the mainstream. Earlier this week, food 
website Epicurious--a site a lot of Americans turn to when they are 
wondering what to cook for dinner--announced that it will no longer add 
new recipes featuring beef. The website said its move is not anti-beef 
but pro-planet. It is pretty much wrong on both counts.
  First of all, the move to demonize beef could have real consequences 
for a lot of ranchers, like those I represent in South Dakota. If the 
demand for beef drops, some of these ranchers may be out of a job. Of 
course, the Green New Deal's authors would probably suggest a 
government program to help

[[Page S2362]]

them out, but I can't think of many ranchers I know who would like to 
abandon their way of life for their dependence on a government program, 
and there is no reason they should have to.
  Contrary to the story being pushed by the environmental left, beef 
production is directly responsible for only a tiny fraction of U.S. 
emissions, and beef cattle actually plays an important role in managing 
pasturelands that sequester vast amounts of carbon. On top of that, it 
has become clear that, with certain feed additives, it is possible to 
significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization of beef 
even more wrong-headed.
  Today, I am introducing the Livestock Regulatory Protection Act with 
my colleague Senator Sinema. I actually introduced this bill years ago 
with the Democratic leader, before it became dangerous for Members of 
the Democratic leadership to support anything that might anger the 
environmental left. The Livestock Regulatory Protection Act is simple. 
It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing 
emissions regulations relating to the biological processes of 
livestock.
  We really shouldn't need this bill, but it is becoming increasingly 
clear that we do. This legislation was included in annual funding bills 
on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democratic leader 
and I first introduced it, but the House has omitted it from its recent 
bills, and the Senate has had to secure its inclusion in the final 
bills. Passing this legislation would give livestock producers long-
term certainty that their livelihoods will not be compromised by 
overzealous environmental crusaders.
  I believe very strongly in protecting our environment. I have been an 
outdoorsman all my life. In many ways, outdoors men and women are the 
original environmentalists. If you value spending time in the 
outdoors--whether you are hunting or hiking, fishing or swimming--it is 
likely you are going to care a lot about keeping our air and water 
clean, preserving native species, and safeguarding our natural 
resources.
  I have been interested in clean energy issues for a long time and 
have been introducing legislation to support clean energy development 
for more than a decade. In February, I introduced two bipartisan bills 
to support the increased use of biofuels and to emphasize their clean 
energy potential. Currently, the EPA's modeling does not fully 
recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and 
other biofuels.
  The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would 
fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here 
and abroad by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update 
its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel using the U.S. 
Department of Energy's GREET model.
  I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel 
registrations at the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the 
advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn 
kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely 
used in States like California.
  My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative 
biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the 
research and facility investments they have made and improve their 
operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our 
Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential 
market.
  Just last week, I joined colleagues from both parties to cosponsor 
the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which is legislation to make it 
easier for agriculture producers and foresters to participate in carbon 
markets. This bill is a great example of the kind of bipartisan process 
we should be following when it comes to climate legislation.
  So, as I said, I strongly believe in protecting our environment, but 
I believe that we need to protect our environment in a way that takes 
account of people, too. That means promoting legislation that is good 
for our environment and for our economy, that is good for our 
environment and good for agriculture producers, and that is good for 
our environment and good for American families.
  That is why I have introduced proposals like the Soil Health and 
Income Protection Program, or SHIPP. This program, a short-term version 
of the Conservation Reserve Program, is a win for both our environment 
and for farmers and ranchers. SHIPP, which became law as part of the 
2018 farm bill, provides an incentive for farmers to take their lowest 
performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years. Like the 
Conservation Reserve Program, it protects our environment by improving 
soil health and water quality while improving the bottom line for 
farmers.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.''
                                 ______