[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24585-24586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that for the remainder of the day, 
we have completed work on budget reconciliation and we are about to 
move to the Agriculture appropriations conference. I understand 
Chairman Bennett is on his way to the floor, and as soon as he gets 
here I will yield, but I thought for the few moments that remain prior 
to that, I would discuss that very important appropriations conference 
we will soon be discussing.
  The reason I want to do that is because I made an effort during the 
appropriations conference to deal with what I believe is a major issue 
threatening American agriculture today that the Congress has largely 
ignored at this moment, and the courts are now working their will and 
the trial bar is working its will at the moment to try to change the 
intent of law.
  The agricultural industry is, I think, very concerned about 
litigation actions being taken to apply the Superfund law, referred to 
as CERCLA, and its counterpart, the Community Right to Know Act, better 
known as EPCRA, to emissions or discharges primarily from livestock and 
poultry waste produced during the normal course of farming operations.
  Someone would say, You mean a dairy farm or a poultry operation ought 
to be plunged into Superfund? Well, that is exactly what is being 
attempted at this moment and, of course, we would say no. The reason we 
say no is because when those laws were created by Congress, agriculture 
was clearly exempt. It was intended to be and it was exempt at that 
time. If you were to put agriculture into the CERCLA/EPCRA issue, 
according to EPA's own description, then you have changed the whole 
dynamics.
  According to the EPA's own description, the Superfund law is ``the 
Federal Government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled 
hazardous waste sites. Under the Superfund program, abandoned, 
accidentally spilled, or illegally dumped hazardous wastes that pose a 
current or future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned 
up.''
  That is the responsibility of EPA under that issue. Are dairies and 
feedlots uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites? That is what 
we are talking about at this moment.
  EPA goes on to say that ``the Superfund law created a tax on the 
chemical and petroleum industries and allowed the Federal Government to 
respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous wastes that 
might harm people or the environment. The tax went to a trust fund for 
cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.''
  The question is, if we allow the courts and the legal process to 
drive those in agriculture into EPCRA and

[[Page 24586]]

into CERCLA--again the Superfund law and the Community Right to Know 
law--is Congress then ready to appropriate moneys for other 
concentrated herd releases that might result? Should dairies, poultry 
farms, farmer-owned cooperatives, and others be required to pay into 
Superfund as the nuclear laboratories and the petroleum industry do?
  That was never the intent of Congress, and in trying to speak to that 
issue, Congress has to date been silent because environmental groups 
have moved in and are standing at the doors of some of my colleagues, 
wringing their hands and saying oh, no, no, communities have the right 
to know and it ought to be included in all of this, even though the law 
says not.
  Now, that is not to say that these agricultural entities of the day 
are not responsible for clean air and clean water. They are under the 
Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. They work with EPA in those 
standards. They work with their State environmental councils and 
environmental departments to meet those kinds of standards.
  What we are talking about is a legal issue attempting to shift, if 
you will, these responsibilities away from the intent of the law, as 
spoken to so very clearly by this Congress in the creation of those two 
entities, EPCRA and CERCLA.
  Another provision of the Superfund law allows EPA to fine violators 
up to $27,500 per day. Does that sound like a sum tailored to fit a 
farmer? Environmental groups would have you think that, well, you know, 
this is only for the big boys, the big operators. But then they do not 
define big. They say, well, large concentrated herd areas. It is the 
small versus large issue. Once it is well established that large 
operators in American agriculture are required to comply under these 
acts and meet the standards of the acts, any of us who have ever 
watched the progress or the evolution or the migration of law through 
the courts over time know it is only a moment in time before the small 
operator is included.
  I made an effort during Agriculture appropriations and Agriculture 
appropriations conferences to clarify this issue and to say once again 
very clearly to the American public the intent of the laws of Superfund 
and Community Right to Know, and those intents were very clear--not to 
include American agriculture. It isn't the big versus small issue at 
all. It is where do you rest the responsibility on the issue. It is not 
to say that American agriculture doesn't have a responsibility. Of 
course, they do. And they are fulfilling that responsibility under 
State law, under county zoning, under EPA, under the Clean Water Act 
and the Clean Air Act. These are issues that I hope this Congress will 
soon address.
  As to my amendment that I attempted, that the Republicans in the 
Senate did support in the conference, the conference collapsed itself 
so that it would not have to deal with this ``thorny issue'' of the 
moment; it walked away from the National Association of State 
Departments of Agriculture that supported our effort and the Southern 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture because at the State 
level, State Departments of Agriculture get it, they understand it, and 
they know this has to be clarified. We cannot let the trial bar, if you 
will, and communities of interest try to rewrite public policy through 
the court process. That is exactly what is going on today. Several 
lawsuits have been filed in this effort.
  I am certainly going to be back, as I know many of my colleagues 
will, in attempting to deal with this very important issue. I do 
respect what Chairman Bennett had to do to move the Agriculture 
appropriations conference forward. I had hoped we could get the CERCLA 
and EPCRA amendment into the conference, but it is not here. The 
conference is silent to it. The conference did good work. I am pleased 
to see that we could get as far as we could get in a variety of issues.
  The chairman and the ranking member are now in the Chamber. They had 
a tough road to meet budget reconciliation with what they were 
allocated. I know that was difficult, and I appreciate the work my 
staff was able to do with the chairman and the ranking member's staffs 
to get where we got with what we have today. I wish we had my 
amendment. I don't want those who say they stand for agriculture 
walking away from this issue and allowing the courts to rewrite public 
policy. If we are responsible practitioners of public policy--and that 
is what we are--then this is an issue we well ought to take on. Every 
State in the Nation has this problem today, and we ought not let the 
bar, the courts, and a few interested parties rewrite our laws.
  I hope we can address this again at another time.
  I do appreciate the work that was done. There were a lot of issues 
left on the table in this conference I hoped we could have addressed, 
that we could then get to, certainly those which dealt with healthy 
forests, categoric exclusions, and other issues, but that is debate for 
another day.
  The chairman is in the Chamber. It is 6 o'clock. It is his time to 
bring forth the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I thought 
I would use some of the limited time we have to debate this important 
appropriations conference report.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________