[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8821-8822]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                THE EPA

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to talk about something 
that is on the minds of our agricultural producers. In meetings in my 
home State, across Nebraska, it seems the first question is always 
going to be or the second question is always going to be something 
related to the EPA. Most of the time, the question goes like this: What 
is going on at the EPA? Why are they trying to put me out of business?
  In response to this growing concern, which I am confident the EPA has 
heard, they have taken to the road with a good old-fashioned charm 
offensive. The problem is, what the EPA is selling publicly to farmers 
and ranchers--what they are trying to sell--just doesn't match up with 
reality. They say one thing on the road while the regulatory train just 
continues to barrel forward, right here in Washington. In fact, the EPA 
Administrator is touring the country, community after community, saying 
not to worry; there is no need for ``. . . fear in rural areas that EPA 
is coming after you.'' Yet the regulations continue to come after our 
Nation's farmers, ranchers, and small businesses, and those regulations 
are coming fast and furious. Even the Regional Administrator with 
responsibility for Nebraska and Iowa and Kansas and Missouri has joined 
the charm offensive. In a recent speech to the Agricultural Business 
Council of Kansas City, he has said that he does not ``see where this 
administration is doing anything new.''
  But, quite simply, the EPA's charming rhetoric does not match up with 
its rule-by-rule intent. If I might, let me illustrate what I mean. 
Let's talk about dust--not the stuff you find on your bookshelf but the 
stuff a truck kicks up or a tractor kicks up when it is going down a 
field or farm lane. Earlier this year a bipartisan group of 33 Senators 
wrote to the EPA. We were worried. We were worried that the EPA had 
plans to regulate farm dust. Don't get me wrong. Clean air is a good 
thing. We need clean air, but dust is also unavoidable in farm country. 
Farming without kicking up dust is like asking a carpenter to cut and 
frame a house without creating sawdust. Well, it just doesn't happen. 
The two things do not go together. Not to worry, says the EPA, message 
No. 1 in the charm offensive; the EPA does not have any plans to do 
anything as silly as regulating farm dust. In fact, on March 10, 
Administrator Jackson noted that EPA has, and I am quoting, ``no plans 
to do so.'' He went on to explain:

       EPA staff is conducting meetings to engage with and listen 
     to farmers and ranchers well before we propose any rule.

  My goodness, that sounds reasonable. Well, except that the response 
letter that the 33 Senators received from the EPA contained an entirely 
different story. That letter, written by Assistant Administrator Gina 
McCarthy, simply said that the source of the dust does not matter and 
that EPA cannot consider costs when it sets the standard.
  Here is how she put it: National air quality standards ``are not 
focused on any specific category of sources or any activity including 
activities related to agriculture or rural roads.''
  McCarthy further noted that ``the Agency is prohibited from 
considering costs.'' The letter leaves my Nebraska producers and 
producers all across this great Nation wondering, what happened? What 
happened to the EPA Administrator saying she wasn't going to regulate 
farm dust? This letter sends the exact opposite message. The answer is 
there is a public relations effort, and then there is a whole separate 
effort called the charm offensive effort, and then there is regulatory 
reality.
  Here are some more examples. On water quality, on April 20, the Des 
Moines Register headline blared message No. 2 of EPA's charm offensive: 
``EPA chief has no plans to regulate farm runoff.''
  Well, EPA was addressing another worry in the farm community that EPA 
would shift from the current State-based approach to a more heavyhanded 
``Federal Government knows best'' approach. It will be our-way-or-the-
highway Federal Government type approach.
  So, again, after reading the headline, farmers and ranchers hoped 
that maybe the EPA was taking a turn for the more reasonable. But a 
March 16 letter from EPA to their regional offices once again tells a 
very different story. The letter lays out a very specific framework how 
EPA wants States to regulate runoff. While the headline says the EPA 
will not initiate regulation of farm runoff, in reality they are 
aggressively prodding States to do it for them.
  If that weren't enough, the agency is also trying to expand their 
authority literally to every irrigation ditch, every low-lying area, 
and they even want to regulate your farm pond. The law is very clear 
that EPA does not have authority over these waters. After Congress 
refused to enact this expansion of their authority, the EPA decided, 
well, let's plow ahead anyway regardless of congressional intent. Does 
that sound familiar with this administration?
  To make matters worse, they are not doing this through a full 
rulemaking process with those pesky public comments and such. Instead, 
the EPA sat down with the Corps of Engineers, the Department of 
Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and issued a so-
called guidance document. That happened in May. EPA claims this 
approach includes exemptions for agriculture, but the whole story is 
not told.
  Instead, it says irrigated areas, stock tanks, and low-lying areas 
are ``generally not waters of the U.S.'' Generally? What do you mean by 
generally? Well, that word ``generally'' produces a tremendous amount 
of uncertainty. It creates fear. It creates confusion and gives farmers 
and ranchers zero peace of mind. You see, they do not trust the EPA.
  Further, the guidance shifts the burden of proving exemption from 
regulation to our producers. Instead of EPA or State regulators being 
forced to explain why on Earth agricultural producers should be 
subjected to such regulations, producers will now have to explain why 
it is ridiculous to regulate their stock tanks in irrigated areas

[[Page 8822]]

under runoff regulations. This will result, of course, in increased 
permitting costs, paperwork, and other redtape, and it is far from 
farmer friendly.
  Yet the FDA exemptions for agriculture do not end there. Let us not 
forget EPA's backdoor energy tax where EPA is promising farms and 
ranches an exemption. EPA is once again lulling farmers to complacency 
by sending this message: do not worry; we are not going to force you to 
buy permits. To quote the EPA Administrator, ``EPA is proposing 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner and 
we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.''
  Producers, quite justifiably, heard the words ``exempted 
agriculture'' and may have thought: we are going to be OK here. The 
reality is far different and very definitely a course has been set that 
should concern every single farmer, rancher, small business person in 
this great Nation.
  The American Farm Bureau put it best in testimony to the House Energy 
and Commerce Committee. I am quoting:

       Any costs incurred by utilities, refiners, manufacturers to 
     comply with the greenhouse gas regulatory requirements will 
     be passed on to the consumers of these products including 
     farmers and ranchers. As a result, our Nation's farmers and 
     ranchers will have higher input costs--namely fuel and energy 
     costs--to grow food and fiber and fuel for our Nation and the 
     world.

  So picture this: A Nebraska farmer gets the electric bill, calls up 
the power company and says, whoa, wait a minute here. EPA told me its 
climate change efforts were not going to target me. In fact, they said 
I was exempted. So why am I paying so much more?
  Unfortunately, they are going to have the same conversation with the 
diesel supplier, their fertilizer retailer, and the local gas station 
where they fill up the pickup and truck.
  The EPA promise of exemption will, unfortunately, meet the reality of 
dramatic increases in input costs. EPA's reassuring words about an 
exemption will turn out to be absolutely empty, misleading, and 
absolutely 100 percent unhelpful when the electricity and diesel bill 
come due. But the public relations effort and charm offensive marches 
on. It even includes an Executive order titled ``Improving Regulation 
and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President in January. Isn't that 
enticing?
  The directive instructs each Federal agency to consider ``how best to 
promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, 
ineffective, insufficient or excessively burdensome.''
  According to the order, ``our regulatory system must protect public 
health, welfare, safety and our environment while promoting economic 
growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation.''
  My goodness, that is all of the right words. Once again, it sounded 
as though we are headed in the right direction. But then, in April, an 
EPA official stated that the Agency--this is remarkable--the Agency was 
unaffected by the President's Executive order because they do not 
propose rules where costs exceed the benefits. However, the same 
official admitted that the Agency does not consider direct job impacts 
in its economic analysis. Can anybody figure that out?
  These two statements obviously conflict. EPA's actions in drafting 
several of these costly, excessive burdensome regulations fail to meet 
the goals of the Executive order issued by the President of the United 
States, but their public relations campaign speeds forward.
  Back home in Nebraska, as in other States in this great country, we 
make agreements on a handshake, because we believe if you shake 
somebody's hand, you can trust them. That is the way it works. 
Unfortunately, within the bureaucratic walls of the EPA, that is not 
the case. Instead of spouting charming verbiage about the benefits of 
increased regulation, EPA should be looking for ways to work with 
farmers and ranchers and small businesses to find solutions to 
environmental challenges while creating jobs for Americans who are out 
of work.
  After all, the men and women who depend on the land to feed their own 
families and to feed us are responsible stewards of the environment. 
Unfortunately, based on what we have seen over the past couple of 
years, EPA used agricultural producers as offenders, not partners. 
EPA's shift into campaign mode to appear farmer friendly is 
disingenuous. They rolled out this charm offensive to make it sound as 
though they were farmer friendly.
  Let me wrap up by saying, why not just do it? Be job friendly, farmer 
friendly, agriculture friendly.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________