U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–276 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–1028 

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO EXAMINE 

THE IMPACT OF EPA REGULATION ON 

AGRICULTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

ROBERT HOLIFIELD, Majority Staff Director 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Oversight Hearing to Examine the Impact of EPA Regulation on Agriculture . 1 

Wednesday, September 23, 2010 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ................................. 1 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ........................ 5 

Panel I 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 8 

Panel II 

Hillman, Rich, Vice President, Arkansas Farm Bureau, Carlisle, Arkansas ..... 31 

Vroom, Jay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Croplife America, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 32 

White, Jere, Executive Director, Kansas Corn Growers Association, Barnett, 

Kansas ................................................................................................................... 34 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck ....................................................................................... 46 

Hillman, Rich .................................................................................................... 47 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa P. ....................................................................................... 54 

Vroom, Jay ........................................................................................................ 66 

White, Jere ........................................................................................................ 75 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Holiday Shores Subpoena ................................................................................ 82 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L.: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 92 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 94 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 99 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E.: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 104 

Johanns, Hon. Mike: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 102 

McConnell, Hon. Mitch: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 100 

Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 95 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

Written questions to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson .................................................... 102 

Written questions to Jere White ..................................................................... 148 

Page

IV 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa P.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln ...................... 108 

Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss ......................... 114 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 127 

Written response to questions from Hon. Charles E. Grassley .................... 141 

Written response to questions from Hon. Mike Johanns .............................. 137 

Written response to questions from Hon. Mitch McConnell ......................... 130 

Written response to questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson .................... 120 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 135 

White, Jere: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 149 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO EXAMINE 

THE IMPACT OF EPA REGULATION ON 

AGRICULTURE 

Thursday, September 23, 2010 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., in Room 

SR328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Blanche Lincoln, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Lincoln, Conrad, 

Stabenow, Nelson, Klobuchar, Chambliss, Roberts, Johanns, and 

Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE 

ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairman LINCOLN. Good afternoon. The Senate 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry will now come 

to order. 

I am pleased to hold this hearing, examining the impact of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of farmers and 

ranchers. 

As always I am delighted to be joined by my good friend and 

ranking member Senator Chambliss who I know had other things 

he has been at and may have to leave for as well but I am so proud 

that he is here today and grateful for his sharing of my passion 

and commitment for farmers, ranchers and certainly rural America. He serves us all well. I am glad he is here. 

Several excellent witnesses will provide testimony today, and I 

would like to first extend a special thanks to fellow Arkansan, Mr. 

Rich Hillman. To be here with us today Rich is missing the first 

day of a two-day meeting of the Board of Directors of the Arkansas 

Farm Bureau. 

So, Rich, I appreciate you for being here. 

We will also hear from Mr. Jay Vroom, who is the President and 

Chief Executive Officer of Croplife America; and, of course, Mr. 

Jere White, who is Executive Director of the Kansas Corn Growers 

Association. 

Finally, a very special thanks to you, Administrator Lisa Jackson, from the Environmental Protection Agency for coming before 

us and appearing before the Committee today. 

2 

Administrator Jackson, I know you and your team have been extremely busy in these last several months as we mentioned back 

here, responding to this spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We appreciate 

that, and we appreciate you making time to be with us today. 

As a farmer’s daughter I learned first-hand from farmers and 

ranchers and foresters who are the best stewards of our land. I 

have never known a better conservationist than my dad who had 

a tremendous respect for the land and a great love for it as well. 

It provided for us with the safest, most abundant, and most affordable supply of food and fiber in the world, and they have done 

it for generations. 

This could not happen without the careful stewardship of their 

land. In fact, much of the conservation gains that have been made 

over the past half century have been achieved through voluntary, 

incentive-based cost sharing programs, many of which were developed on a bipartisan basis by members of this Committee both past 

and present. Truly remarkable improvements have been made in 

reduced soil erosion, improved water and air quality, and wildlife 

habitat restoration. 

To my point I would suggest that any of you all that might think 

about it pick up a copy of the Worst Hard Times. It is a story about 

the dust bowl days to really get a sense of where we have been and 

where we are today thanks to a collaborative effort between farmers, ranchers, and those who really understand production agriculture in Congress. 

As one who has been a part of this progress, it has been my experience and it is certainly my judgment that the carrot has time and 

time again proved mightier than the stick when it comes to advancing important conservation and environmental objectives on farms, 

ranches, and forest land. 

Unfortunately farmers and ranchers in rural Arkansas and all 

over on our Nation are increasingly frustrated and bewildered by 

vague, overreaching and unnecessarily burdensome EPA regulations. Farmers face so many unknowns, so many that many of us 

just take for granted. The last thing they need is regulatory uncertainty. 

Producers are subject to the whims of the commodity markets 

and the weather, just to name a few. A sudden shift in price or a 

wet summer can devastate a farmer and drive him out of business. 

In the face of these stark realities, our farmers, ranchers and foresters need clear, straightforward, and predictable rules to live by 

that are not burdensome, duplicative, costly, unnecessary or, in 

some cases, just plain bizarre. 

Farmers and ranchers do not have an army of environmental engineers, lawyers, and regulatory compliance specialist on their 

speed dial. 

I do not know but I spent a great deal of time in a pickup truck 

with my dad who had a small binder up above the visor on his car 

or his truck, and that is how he kept up. He did not have a computer. Many farmers still do not have computers on board with 

them in those trucks and cars to be able to figure out what it is 

that is being asked of them and try to decipher it on their own 

without a tremendous number of engineers or lawyers or others. 

Compliance obligations that may seem simple to a career 

3 

bureaucrat in Washington, DC, are often complex, they are ambiguous, and in the end leave farmers and ranchers feeling tremendously uncertain and exposed to steep fines they simply cannot afford in this economic environment. 

I urge everyone to give thought to the following. Right now at a 

time when every American feels anxious about his or her own economic future and the economic future of the country, our farmers, 

ranchers, and foresters are facing at least a dozen, a dozen new 

regulatory requirements, each of which will add to their cost making it harder for them to compete in a world that is marked by stiff 

and usually unfair competition. 

And most, if not all, of these regulations rely on dubious rationales, and as a consequence, will be of questionable benefit to the 

overall goal of conservation and environmental protection. 

There is no question that our farmers and ranchers want to do 

what is best for the environment. They ask that you do not lower 

your expectations of them but simply give them goals that they can 

reach and still continue to produce a safe and affordable and abundant supply of food and fiber. 

They ask that you work together with agriculture community to 

set these common sense goals instead of using the command and 

control top down approach that this Administration has relied on 

so far. 

In a moment I will talk about two issues that are prime examples of this Administration’s overreaching approach to regulation. 

But I would be remiss if I did not mention several other issues that 

really do concern me. 

EPA’s recent proposed spray drift guidance, as I have indicated 

in a letter to the Administrator, was vague, unenforceable, and 

would have left producers uncertain about whether they were complying within the law when they sprayed. 

I was initially informed that EPA decided to reconsider the proposed spray drift guidance. Though more recently I have now heard 

that EPA plans to stick with its initial proposal. This troubles me 

because, as I stated before, the proposed standard is completely unworkable. 

Now as chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry, I do not know what to expect or to understand or to 

encourage growers across this Nation as to what they can expect. 

You can imagine the concern and the confusion among our farmers 

and ranchers and foresters in this country not knowing what it is 

they can anticipate. 

I am also concerned about EPA’s recent practice of settling Clean 

Water Act lawsuits while only allowing environmental groups a 

seat at the table. I believe, as I always have, in whatever issue we 

are dealing with all stakeholders should have a seat at the table 

when so much is on the line. 

Also the Administrator’s goal of expanding the use of renewable 

energy is being undermined by EPA’s proposed boiler MACT which 

would inhibit the use of biomass by subjecting new facilities to 

needlessly expensive emission controls. This regulation would also 

impose new costs on the Nation’s paper industry which currently 

relies on biomass for two thirds of its energy. 

4 

Then there is EPA’s proposed ambient air quality standards for 

particulate matter which could lead to stringent regulations of dust 

on farms. Folks, dust is a fact of life in rural and agricultural areas 

of the United States. Trucks, combines, livestock, they all kick up 

dust during the course of normal farming operations. EPA must 

use common sense when setting these types of standards. 

Finally, I flat out disagree with EPA’s regulation of greenhouse 

gases. Because the legal foundation for the tailoring is shaky at 

best probably, I fear that federal courts will order EPA to regulate 

small sources of greenhouse gases. This could mean unnecessary 

regulation for thousands of farms all around the country. 

We cannot allow this to happen, and as I have said time and 

again, it should be Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, who 

should be writing the laws to regulate greenhouse gases. 

Now, just to talk about two issues in greater detail, the first involves EPA’s development of Clean Water Act permit requirements 

for pesticide applications. 

What is most frustrating to me about this development is that 

the pesticide applications will unnecessarily regulate twice, once 

under FIFRA and again under the Clean Water Act. 

I firmly believe that as long as a FIFRA registered product is applied in accordance with its label and any other conditions, then we 

should not be requiring unnecessary, duplicative regulatory burdens. 

The Clean Water Act requirements for pesticide applications 

have also created incredible uncertainty and concern for producers, 

especially rice producers in our State of Arkansas. 

Growers are suddenly forced to make a choice between either potentially seeking an expensive permit that requires onerous record 

keeping and other obligations and yet does nothing for the environment that FIFRA does not already do for spraying without a permit and be potentially subject to Clean Water Act citizen suits and 

enormous civil penalties. It is simply a choice that our farmers and 

ranchers and foresters should not have to make. 

For these reasons, Ranking Member Chambliss and I introduced 

S. 3735, a bill that would clarify that a Clean Water Act permit is 

not required if a pesticide is applied in accordance with FIFRA. It 

is my hope that we could find a way to pass this legislation as soon 

as possible. 

Second issue, one unique to my home State of Arkansas, and I 

appreciate the Committee bearing with me, is EPA’s rush to establish a total maximum daily load for the Illinois River before the 

State of Oklahoma revisits its phosphorous standards for the river. 

Common sense would seem to suggest that Oklahoma should revisit its phosphorus standards before EPA takes action. 

I am also concerned by multiple reports from poultry farmers in 

the northwest part of our State indicating a lack of clarity regarding their obligation under the Clean Water Act. I cannot emphasize 

enough that poultry farmers are not power plants or large manufacturing facilities. They do not have lawyers and engineers on 

staff. They do not sit around sipping coffee, parsing and debating 

the finer points of the Clean Water Act or the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the meaning of the term ‘‘waters of the US’’. They 

5 

need guidance and a clear set of expectations, and it is EPA’s job 

to provide it. 

As we work to create jobs and put our economy back on track, 

I know, I hope and believe that with all of our objectives here 

working together we must give folks in rural America the certainty 

they need to be successful. Overreaching, burdensome regulations 

from the EPA create huge uncertainties for our farmers and ranchers and put our Nation’s food supply at risk. 

I hope that we can use today’s hearing to discuss how we can create a more collaborative relationship between the EPA and American agriculture. 

I again want to thank you all for being here. I appreciate Administrator Jackson for being here and look forward to being able to 

work to find some kind of common ground here that makes sense 

to people in rural America and those that do produce for us the 

safest, most abundant, and affordable supply of food and fiber in 

the world. 

So I will now turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Chambliss, 

for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and let me just say at the outset that after what your Razorbacks 

did to my Bull Dogs last Saturday—— 

Chairman LINCOLN. I was not going to mention that. You 

brought that up. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I have every reason to be upset with everybody in Arkansas. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Since we do not play you all for two more 

years, it is going to take me two years to get over it. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LINCOLN. We went pretty easy on you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. If you did not care who won, it was an exciting football game. 

Thanks for your comments and likewise you are a great partner 

here and with all the complex and difficult issues that face American agriculture, we have had a great working relationship and we 

are continuing down the road on this very sensitive issue, and for 

that I thank you for holding this hearing on this important and 

timely topic. 

Administrator Jackson, I thank you for coming before the Committee today. I realize that your time obviously is very valuable. 

I hope that I, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

and from every region of the country, can impress upon you just 

how serious our concerns are with the Environmental Protection 

Agency. Really all of rural America is concerned. 

As we open this discussion, let me say from the outset that I am 

not here to complain that agriculture is being unfairly or is being 

picked on or unfairly targeted by this Administration. However, I 

do think it is fair to say that we are here to talk about an approach 

to government regulation and several specific regulations that will 

6 

have a pivotal impact on the future of the agricultural sector in 

America. 

A few weeks ago, Secretary Vilsack unveiled two USDA reports 

that show that the U.S. agriculture sector is improving and exports 

are growing. After declining more than 20 percent in 2009, farm 

sector earnings have experienced a rapid rebound in 2010 and are 

forecasted to rise even higher by the end of this year. 

The secretary also announced that agricultural exports are pro- jected to reach $107.5 billion with an $11 billion increase over this 

year. These figures make 2010 the second highest year on record. 

That is great news for agriculture. I wish it were true for the rest 

of our economy. 

But as we think about this news, the question we then ask is 

what impact are EPA’s regulatory plans going to have on future opportunities for growth. Specifically, will the regulations help or 

hinder these opportunities and the jobs, investment, and income 

that come with them. 

Given the regulatory issues before us, particularly the one cited 

by the Chairman, I believe along with many of my colleagues 

around this table that the agency’s plans will hinder growth in agriculture in rural America. 

By my count there are more than 20 different efforts underway 

at EPA that affect agriculture and the farmers, ranchers, foresters, 

agribusinesses and rural communities of this country. 

Let me just list a few of them for you. Clean Water Act permits 

for pesticide applications. Next April EPA will impose a completely 

unnecessary paperwork burden on pesticide users by requiring a 

national pollutant discharge elimination system permit for pesticide applications. This requirement will add zero protection for 

the environment. 

Under this framework, more than 5.6 million pesticide applications will need to be permitted because the agency refused to defend its well considered 30-year-old policy in this area. 

Next, atrazine. Last year EPA decided to re-review atrazine. This 

was shocking since there was no scientific reason for it, especially 

since EPA had finished a comprehensive review of atrazine in 2006 

and is scheduled to begin the re-registration process in 2013. EPA’s 

own Scientific Advisory Panel has questioned the agency’s motive 

for a second review. 

Next, numeric nutrient criteria. EPA’s plan to set criteria for 

Florida’s streams, rivers, and lakes is astonishingly expensive. In 

fact, the estimated initial cost just for agriculture is anywhere from 

$855 million to more than $3 billion. This effort has been highly 

criticized for lack of correlation between the proposed criteria and 

the desired condition of these waters. 

But this is not just about Florida. This precedent set in Florida 

will affect the entire country. EPA has one chance to get it right. 

Next, CAFOs. EPA will begin to expand the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation program next summer to require permits 

for all small and medium operations and to develop more aggressive nutrient management plans for all sizes of farms. This expansion is due to a settlement agreement with an environmental litigant which is a very poor way to set policy and is based upon a 

questionable interpretation of the law. 

7 

Next, greenhouse gas regulations. The EPA suite of regulations 

would drive up costs for all energy users, bring large and small agribusinesses into a permitting program, and within a few years require large farms to obtain air permits. 

In addition, EPA’s treatment of biomass emissions in its tailoring 

rule contradicts long-standing US policy. The uncertainty created 

by this rule is sidelining investment in biomass power something 

this Administration has made a priority in its green energy agenda—and threatening the viability of existing biomass energy production facilities. 

Next, risk assessment for dioxin. Exposure to dioxin has declined 

by 90 percent over the past two decades. This is a victory. Unbelievably at the very same time, however, EPA is contemplating setting a standard lower than every other developed nation. This 

would mean that no food, which is the primary source of dioxin exposure, would be safe. This defies rational science and all common 

sense. 

Why does all of this matter? Because we need American agriculture not just to feed Americans but to feed the world. The Food 

and Agriculture Organization, FAO, recently projected the world 

population will rise from 6.8 billion today to 9.1 billion people by 

2050. 

In short, the world will need to produce 70 percent more food to 

feed an additional 2.3 billion people. Nearly all of the population 

growth will occur in developing countries. At the same time, food 

producing nations like the United States will need to take a leadership role in combating poverty and hunger using scarce natural resources more efficiently and adapting to a changing climate. 

While the FAO is cautiously optimistic about the world’s potential to feed itself by 2050, I seriously question whether anyone has 

made the connection between the central role that America must 

play to solve this challenge and the regulations that EPA has put 

forth for agriculture, the very industry that will be responsible for 

the solution. 

No one disputes the need or desire for clean air and water, bountiful habitat, and healthy landscapes. We all believe in that. But 

at some point, which I believe we are getting dangerously close to, 

regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers will hinder rather 

than help them become better stewards of the land and more bountiful producers of food, fiber, and fuel. 

Administrator Jackson, you as the leader of EPA, are the one to 

make this connection along with Secretary Vilsack. It is you that 

must take this to your colleagues in the Administration and ask 

the hard questions about this approach to agriculture. I hope this 

hearing helps motivate you to do exactly that. 

In a spirit of cooperation, let me close with this final thought. 

These issues are not going away. They must be addressed in a reasonable manner. We have a choice. The agriculture community can 

fight regulation by regulation or we, Congress, the Administration, 

and the agricultural sector can work together on a sensible approach that harnesses the innovation, productive capability, and 

natural resource base of America to improve the future of our country and our neighbors around the world. It is my hope that this 

hearing will open the door to do just that. 

8 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this timely 

hearing, and I look forward to the Administrator’s testimony. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you. I appreciate your closing comments, and in the good spirit of what we did on nutrition is a great 

opportunity in this Committee to work in a bipartisan way and 

with the Administration and the industry to really find those kind 

of common sense solutions to the problems that we might face. So 

I thank the Senator for reminding us where we have come from 

and where we have to go. 

We have two panels that we are anxious to hear from today. In 

the interest of time, any Senator I would hope that you all would, 

if you want to just submit your opening statements for the record, 

I know people are wanting to get out of town too so we will move 

on. 

We would like to welcome EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Before becoming EPS’s Administrator, Ms. Jackson served as Chief of 

Staff to New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and commissioner of the 

State’s Department of Environmental Protection. 

Prior to joining DEP, she worked for 16 years as an employee of 

the U.S. EPA. She has been working tirelessly in the Gulf and I 

know that is certainly something of great importance to her as I 

believe you were born or raised in New Orleans so it is hometown 

territory for you and I know it is work that you hated to have to 

do but enjoyed being there to be able to see all the things that you 

could accomplish in reviving the Gulf. 

Administrator Jackson, we look forward to your remarks. Your 

written testimony will be submitted for the record and I ask that 

you keep your remarks hopefully to as close to five minutes as you 

can. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Lincoln, Ranking Member Chambliss, members of 

the Committee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify. 

I am pleased to talk with you about EPA’s mission to protect 

human health and the environment and the interaction with the 

agriculture community. Farmers and ranchers are an essential part 

of the American economy. They provide us with food, fiber, and 

fuel. The agriculture community should be credited with taking significant steps to protect the environment while finding innovative 

ways to feed millions of people. 

I recognize that there are concerns in the agriculture community 

about EPA’s activities. Two weeks ago I was in Americus, Georgia, 

where I heard directly from local farmers about the challenges they 

and their families face and how they are attempting to deal with 

environmental issues. 

The slim margins on which farmers operate, the inability to pass 

along the cost of environmental improvements, and their vulnerability in a difficult economy was obvious and a critical considerations in working with agriculture. 

At the same time that we are hearing concerns from farmers, 

they are also expressing their willingness to engage with us on environmental challenges. American farmers have made substantial 

9 

contributions to protecting the environment from practices that reduce risk from pesticide use in fruit orchards and vegetable fields 

to conservation efforts to protect water quality in regions such as 

the Chesapeake Bay. While much has been accomplished, too much 

remains to be done to protect our air and water as the population 

and development increases. 

As EPA Administrator I made a commitment to protect the air 

we breathe, the water we drink and use to irrigate our land and 

to protect the land that is our heritage and our children’s inheritance. 

I pledged to uphold the law, use the best available science, and 

be transparent in our decision-making at EPA. A recent example 

of EPA’s commitment to those principles came during the RFS2 

rule making. Congress directed EPA to conduct a life cycle analysis 

for biofuels. EPA’s initial proposal in the spring of 2009 was based 

on science as we knew it at that time. 

We opened our analysis to comments from the public and industry as well as an independent science review, and I sent senior 

staff to Iowa so that they could meet with farmers and researchers. 

Based on the vast amount of new information received and analyzed, we came to a substantially different conclusion than our initial proposal. Throughout that process we demonstrated our willingness to engage with the public to carry out our responsibilities, 

to make complex decisions under the law, and to ensure that we 

follow the current science. 

Taking the time to solicit ideas directly from farmers and listening to their concerns is major priority for me. I have co-hosted a 

series of meetings with Secretary Vilsack at which we met with 

producers and their representatives from the commodity, livestock, 

and specialty crops sectors. 

These meetings were candid and wide-ranging conversations 

with farmers and ranchers where I heard their concerns firsthand. 

I also heard about the remarkable things they and their neighbors 

are doing across the country in large and small operations to protect our land, water, and air. 

As a product of what we learned in those meetings, I have asked 

my staff to initiate two important discussions with agricultural 

stakeholders. 

First, I am asking our Office of Air and Radiation to carry out 

an extensive effort to solicit information about the issues associated 

with PM10, the dust issue, and its implication for rural communities and agriculture before we make any proposal on this issue. 

Second, I am asking our Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance to convene a discussion with agricultural and other 

stakeholders to foster better understanding and communication 

around EPA’s enforcement operations and to discuss options for increasing the ability of agriculture to protect the environment. By 

providing these opportunities, I hope to demonstrate EPA’s commitment to engaging directly with the agriculture and rural communities. 

EPA has also been making direct and substantial investment in 

the farm communities’ efforts to find and implement environmentally sound practices. 

10 

During my time so far at EPA, the agency has provided approxi- mately $190 million in grants in direct support for critical agricultural projects across the United States. Our investment is as diverse as the range of issues that farmers must grapple with. 

For instance, we have provided grants to states for work to protect Lake Champlain’s watershed, to reduce insect resistance for 

crops in the southwest United States, to help farmers adapt variable rate technologies in Ohio. 

In many of these efforts, EPA funds have been used along with 

USDA funds such as EPA’s seed grant in south Georgia which 

helped leverage a substantial investment from USDA to assist limited resource and disadvantaged farmers to implement best management practices. 

Admittedly EPA’s financial resources are only one part of the 

larger picture of support. While in many places they are a catalyst 

and a complement to the much more significant resources that 

USDA brings to communities, the immense private investment by 

farmers and their communities are the major driver. 

If there is one message I want to send today, it is that I recognize that the most effective course for protecting our environment 

is an active partnership between EPA and USDA and farmers and 

their communities. 

We will continue to face complex and difficult issues in carrying 

out the responsibilities that Congress has given us. I am encouraged by my conversations with farmers that there is a path forward on the issues ahead. Just as important, my conversations 

with the agricultural community have reinforced my belief and 

commitment that a healthy farm economy and a health environment can and should go hand in hand. 

Thank you. I am pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson can be found on page 54 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you so much, Administrator for your 

testimony. Just a few questions. 

In my opening statement I stated that it makes no sense for pesticide application to be subject to both FIFRA and the Clean Water 

Act. FIFRA takes into account environmental considerations so additional Clean Water Act regulation is certainly an unnecessary 

burden not only to applicators but also to state regulatory authorities. And States like Arkansas are underfunded and struggle to 

keep up with existing laws and regulations and do not need to 

spend their time enforcing regulations that do not improve the environment. 

Your agency is not scheduled to finish the general permit it is 

developing until December 2010. I have heard that it may be 

pushed back to January 2011. States are supposed to implement 

their permitting programs by April 2011. 

I am frankly amazed that your agency expects states to implement that general permit into law in a mere four months’ time. Do 

you think it is reasonable for a state to implement, that it is going 

to be reasonable for a state to implement a complicated permitting 

system between January 2011 and April 2011? 

I guess would you consider asking the Sixth Circuit to extend the 

compliance deadline beyond April 2011 giving states additional 

11 

time to implement the permitting requirement; and if they cannot 

meet it, if states cannot meet it by April 2011 deadline due to the 

lack of resources and the lack of time, what do you suggest that 

they do? What are you going to suggest to them that they do? 

And I guess how about applicators in our states that do not meet 

the deadline either. What are you going to recommend that they 

do? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

From the beginning, EPA has worked to craft a proposed general 

permit with the states and with stakeholders that meet the court’s 

direction but minimize the burden to states and to the regulated 

community. 

The idea of a general permit was, a general permit is probably 

the least intrusive regulatory method. I realize that a preference 

within the Ag community is no permit but the general permit was 

intended to be the least intrusive way of providing notification required through the court decision. 

We have worked quite closely with states. I am certainly not representing that we are there. The permit is out for comment. That 

is why we are in a comment period where that work continues. 

We will finalize it as expeditiously as possible and we will continue what has already begun which is extensive outreach that will 

morph into training. The states will be the ones to implement that 

permit, and we are very well aware of that fact. 

Chairman LINCOLN. I would just say that we are at the end of 

September here, and the possibilities of being able to see that happen in that time frame become more and more bleak, and I would 

just consider that I think probably one of the most frustrating 

things to Americans right now is the lack of certainty and the lack 

of predictability coming out of Washington, and I would hate for 

this to be yet one more thing. 

If states are not capable of implementing that in that time 

frame, it is going to be very difficult for applicators and for the 

states to be able to meet some of those deadlines. 

So I hope that you will be prepared to provide the kind of guidance that is going to be needed to be there if, in fact, they cannot 

meet that. I would certainly suggest that we actually try to reach 

out and see if we cannot do something about a compliance deadline, 

moving that deadline to a more reasonable time. 

I have also been touring my State of Arkansas extensively this 

year, and recently I heard an up tick in farmers voicing their concerns about EPA coming on to their farms to inspect their poultry 

operations. 

I also know that EPA has identified the Illinois River watershed 

in Oklahoma and Arkansas as a priority watershed. I know that 

you are doing I think two watersheds in each of the regional districts. 

It is my understanding that this could lead to enforcement measures against Arkansas poultry and cattle farms. As I mentioned in 

my opening statement, my farmers do not get paid full-time to sit 

around and think about environmental compliance. 

What efforts has your agency made to reach out to farmers in 

this watershed regarding their compliance efforts? And you know 

if it is true that EPA is starting to come on to their farms, I think 

12 

that EPA has sent out something to each and every poultry farm, 

some sort of guidance document to help them through this process. 

Does EPA have a document that can help farmers in the Illinois 

watershed understand, what is expected of them by you all at the 

agency? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

It is my hope and intention that they have a clear understanding 

of what EPA’s compliance visits are meant to achieve. If that is not 

the case, then I am happy to work with you and your office to ensure that your constituents, that there is no mystery around compliance visits. 

Compliance visits do not assume nor do they presume nor do 

they necessarily result in any kind of an enforcement action. They 

are a visit which is intended to help farmers understand what their 

compliance obligations are under law. 

We have had some successful models in several watersheds. I am 

familiar with one in the Shenandoah watershed where we were 

very clear that we were going to conduct these visits. We try not 

to surprise people. We try to give them information ahead of time 

so that they will understand why we are there. But we also acknowledge that oftentimes working with the state or with elected 

officials is a good way to get information out to the community because there is a lack of trust there. 

Chairman LINCOLN. I certainly know that you would want to say 

that you have tried. I guess the key here is for the uncertainty that 

exists and the concern that these farmers and poultry growers have 

about what kind of fines and repercussions and consequences they 

are going to suffer from that visit is enormous. 

I do not hear from them that they getting information. That is 

why I am asking if you are sending out that kind of information. 

I realize that you know you may think of this as just a visit. But 

to be honest with you, it is not something that is pleasurable for 

them to go through, not knowing what the consequences could be 

particularly in these economic times. 

I have seen some outrageous fines. I have seen some outrageous 

circumstances when you get a lot of people that normally sit behind 

a computer or from a regulatory standpoint coming out onto a farm 

or to a poultry growers operation and they are seeing things for the 

first time. It is enormously alarming to those farmers that you 

know they do not know what is going to happen, what is going to 

be the consequences nor have they been given any kind of heads 

up or information in terms of what the expectations are of them. 

So I hope that some of that information can be more forthcoming 

and I hope that there will be a greater partnership built in terms 

of those visits and what the expectations really are. 

Just one last issue I would like to raise. I have heard that EPA 

is providing two different interpretations of how it views dust and 

feathers emitted from a poultry house fan. 

One view is that it is a Clean Water Act discharge. The other 

view is that it is not. I would sure hope that EPA will clarify complications like these before they proceed. 

When a fan blows in a chicken house, if any of you all have been 

in one, I have been in many, there is a real difference. So I hope 

that we can see more clarification. 

13 

It is truly the uncertainty and unpredictability that comes out of 

Washington that is going to fail us in trying to put our economy 

back on track and put people back to work if we do not provide a 

greater certainty to growers. 

So thank you. I will turn to the ranking member now for his 

questions. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I certainly 

would associate myself with your remarks there. We have got to 

have some certainty in these regulations. 

Administrator Jackson, the Georgia Department of Agriculture 

requested a Section 18 emergency use exemption on the behalf of 

Georgia vegetable growers for the fungicide Manzate on March 18, 

2010. 

The usual turnaround time for an emergency use exemption is 50 

days. The Georgia Department of Agriculture, the University of 

Georgia, George chemical distributors, and Georgia growers have 

provided EPA with all of the information needed to make a decision 

on that date. 

Can you give me a updated status on that and when we might 

expect the decision to be made? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, Senator. 

As I recall, I am trying to find my note as we speak but it is not 

happening. So let me do it from memory and I will get you more 

information if I can. 

The original information was certainly extensive but there were 

still safety risks. The concern was that there were still residual levels that did not comply with the law. And EPA did not believe that 

there was sufficient basis to grant the exemption. 

Now, I think that there is still an opportunity. We did not deny 

it but we did not grant it, and that was quite purposeful. The idea 

was that we believe there is still a way to work together to look 

at the risks and residue issues to try to find circumstances with the 

agricultural community in Georgia where there may be some opportunity for that exemption to be granted. 

That is a fairly common process, sir, is my understanding. There 

is a bit of back and forth in trying to find the right spot in-between 

these exemptions being granted. But the work continues. 

When I was in Georgia recently, we talked about the need to 

make sure that we are aggressively pursuing an alternative or a 

potentially approvable request. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Okay. Well, it has been six months. I just 

appreciate your folks staying in touch with our local folks on the 

ground in Georgia to make sure there is an opportunity to work together. We look forward to doing that but it needs to be moving 

forward. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, if I can just interrupt. My staffer found 

the note, and it says later this fall we expect some resolution. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. In July EPA requested critical use applications for methyl bromide for 2013. In that request the agency announced it was appropriate at this time to consider a year in which 

the agency will stop requesting applications for critical use exemptions. 

Georgia growers have done an outstanding job transitioning 

away from methyl bromide. In fact, Dr. Stanley Culpepper from the 

14 

University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service tonight will 

receive EPA’s Montreal Protocol Award for his work on methyl bromide alternatives. 

However, I have serious reservations about EPA’s preference to 

stop requesting critical use exemptions in 2015. I would like to ask 

you to include the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in 

the agency’s deliberations on this issue and get a commitment from 

you that you would be willing to do that. 

Ms. JACKSON. To work with the Committees on these issues? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. To incorporate the House and Senate Ag 

Committees in the deliberations on methyl bromide’s discontinuance, on those exemptions. 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely, sir, within any confines of the law we 

are happy to include both Committees. We would value your expertise and information and input on those issues. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, I would like for it to be stronger than 

that, Administrator Jackson. I mean you all have been doing some 

things off the cuff down there that have been delineated here this 

afternoon that are going to have a hugely negative impact on agriculture in America. 

What I would like to know is, are you telling us today that when 

it comes to methyl bromide and these exemptions that you are 

going to work with the House and Senate Ag Committees before 

any decisions are made in the future? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Very good. 

In the government’s brief which was prepared in response to agriculture’s petition for Supreme Court review of the National Cotton Council versus EPA case, the agency stated that it believed 

that the Sixth Circuit reached the wrong conclusion in that case 

and that EPA’s rule was justified. 

I believe EPA made the wrong decision not to defend its rule and 

instead develop a general permit for pesticide applications. As you 

know, EPA plans to finalize the general permit by December of this 

year, and EPA and the states will begin enforcing it beginning in 

April of 2011. 

This is an extremely short period of time especially as it requires 

the agency and states to issue 38,000 new permits. If the agency 

will not change its position, I believe it needs to ask the court for 

more time, specifically for at least an additional year. 

Would your agency be willing to do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I cannot commit to that today. I think it is important that, right now it is important for folks to understand that 

EPA is working awfully hard with stakeholders to try to get compliance with the court’s judgment and decision. 

If, as we move closer to the date, we decide we simply cannot get 

there, then so be it. But we have been working very hard with the 

permitting authorities, each of the states, to implement a general 

permit that is workable and that is a minimal additional burden 

to applicators who already have to get permits for these pesticides 

in many states. States run those permit programs. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Again just like with my previous question, 

I would hope that you would have an open dialogue between the 

agency and the Committees on both the House and Senate side on 

15 

this issue because it again is just one of those critical issues for the 

cotton industry that is going to have a huge impact on the bottom 

line for our farmers and at the end of the day we want to have a 

quality product. We want to make sure that air and water is pure 

and clean. But we have got to have that certainty and that understanding between farmers, ranchers, and the EPA. And that means 

between the House Ag Committee and the Senate Ag 

Committee on issues like this. 

I would simply encourage you that if you want to have a desired 

resolution of all of these issues, you just stay in touch with us. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

RM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Madam Chair, thank you. 

Let me start out and just thank the chair for holding this hearing. I think we all feel it is a very important hearing. 

Administrator, I suspect that if you sat down with every Senator 

here today in anticipation of this hearing, they would tell you that 

they have received a letter from one or more farm groups in their 

state, to be blunt about it, attacking your agency. I have a letter 

here and they refer to what you are doing is a nonstop regulatory 

assault on agriculture. That is a direct quote. 

You see, there is a feeling out in the country that you walked in, 

the President walked in, and every idea for more regulation was 

dusted off and cut loose, and agriculture is under attack, and that 

is how people feel. 

I hear you say you were out there, and you have listened to 

farmers, and that you have been with Secretary Vilsack. I just 

would say to you it is one thing to listen; it is another thing to 

hear. 

It just seems like you pay lip service and then go on. Let me give 

you an example. A group of us, a group of Senators wrote you a 

letter, and let me quote for you a piece of federal law. It says this. 

‘‘The Administrator,’’ that being you, ‘‘shall conduct continuing 

evaluation of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of this 

chapter and applicable implementation plans including, where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in 

employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.’’ Unquote. It comes right out of the Clean Air Act. 

So our question to you was are you doing that, and your response 

to us, and it is a longer response but there are three sections that 

jump right out at me. 

Again I am quoting from your letter. Quote. ‘‘EPA has not interpreted Section 321 to require EPA to conduct employment investigations in taking regulatory actions. Secondly, EPA has not conducted a Section 321 investigation of its greenhouse gas actions. 

Third, we are not undertaking a Section 321 analysis of PSD tailoring rule.’’ 

Now, how does Congress get more clear with you? ‘‘Shall’’ seems 

to be quite obvious to me. You know we debate these laws. We battle each other. We fight these things out. We finally get a law 

passed, and it is like nobody is paying any attention. You are just 

16 

kind of out there doing your thing, whatever your thing of the day 

is. 

But here is the point I want to make to you. You are hammering 

the little guy. The big guy that can get capital and loans and access 

that will somehow find a way to deal with what you are requiring 

even thought it is enormously onerous. And even when you exempt 

or we exempt the smaller operator, they still feel the ripple effects 

of what you are doing. 

And you are just causing agriculture to consolidate more and 

more and more at a time when quite honestly that is the last thing 

we need is more consolidation in agriculture. 

So my question to you is this. When you have such a clear direction from Congress as you have got in Section 321, how could you 

possibly reach a conclusion that an employment analysis does not 

need to be done on something so important, so fundamental, so job 

impacting as what you are doing in this area? How can you ignore 

that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, the concern in the countryside that I have 

heard when I have gone out either with the Secretary here in 

Washington or gone out myself is that EPA somehow has it in for 

the agriculture sector. 

My assurance is that we have nothing of the kind. I have no personal agenda. I believe that we cannot be a strong country without 

a strong agricultural sector, that we cannot be prosperous if we 

cannot feed ourselves. 

From an environmental perspective, importing food with the 

huge carbon footprint that means is much less preferable than 

being able to look at food miles and get our food locally, nutritious 

homegrown food. 

So first I just want to get it because it is so important to Americans to understand that any belief that there is an agenda that 

somehow targets that sector would be the furthest thing from who 

I am, what my priority is as EPA Administrator. 

I did check because I have seen the allegations. The year before 

I became Administrator EPA put out about 120, somewhere between 120, 125 regulations. Last year we did 94. 

So there is no huge blowup in the number of regulations but 

there is a huge regulatory backlog, much of it driven by court cases 

which compel the agency to follow the law. I took an oath to follow 

the laws of the land. 

With respect to economic analysis of our rule making, one of 

those 94 regulation was the tailoring rule which specifically exempts agriculture and small businesses from having to face any 

greenhouse gas regulation until at least 2016 when it is my fervent 

hope that by then there will be legislation to govern those issues. 

It was an attempt to give further assurance to those sectors that 

they are not where we are looking for greenhouse gas reductions. 

That being said, any rule we do has a full regulatory impact analysis associated with it, and part of my response to that letter I believe, I do not have to right in front of me, references the fact that 

we take very seriously our responsibility to put forth costs, benefits, and many of our rules, we do our own review, and then we 

have independent review at the White House, and then we go on 

to the public comment and solicit further information. 

17 

I guess I want to end where I began which is that EPA understands that we can have a clean and healthy environment. We are 

working against ourselves if, at the end of the day, that means that 

we are individually harming the agriculture sector. It is not our intention. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. Well, I am going to start with a different message. My message is thank you, thank you very much for what you 

have just done in North Dakota to change the sulfate standard in 

the Upper Sheyenne to allow greater discharges of water to try to 

prevent an uncontrolled release of water from Devil Lake. It is very 

significant what you and your agency did to change the standard 

of 450 parts per million of sulfate to 750 in the Upper Sheyenne. 

We have this situation in North Dakota that is unlike anything 

anywhere else in the country. We have a lake called Devil Lake 

and the lake is now three times the size of the District of Columbia. It has gone up nearly 30 feet in the last 17 years. The Federal Government also at the end of this year spent $900 million dealing with this crisis. $900 million in my State is a lot 

of money. We have raised dikes. We have raised roads. We have 

taken a whole series of steps to try to deal with this crisis. 

We have an outlet running 250 CFS to try to relieve pressure on 

that lake. We had a town that is about to be engulfed. The town 

of Minnewaukan. 

I had federal officials a number of years ago come out and say 

why did they build the town so close to the lake? Well, they were 

actually referencing the high school. Why did they build it so close? 

When they built it, it was eight miles from the lake. 

This is the most incredible thing happening anywhere in the 

country with a runaway lake. We are very appreciative that you 

have changed the standard in a reasonable way to protect health, 

to protect safety. And at the same time recognize there is a much 

bigger threat to the environment if we have an uncontrolled release 

out of the east end of the lake rather than to have controlled releases out of the west end because the water quality on the east 

end of the lake is five times worse than the water quality in the 

west end. 

It is a very unusual lake. It has a flow to it. The water comes 

in the northwest and the lake flows east. And as it flows east, it 

picks up sulfates. 

So if we are going to reduce the risk of uncontrolled release, and 

now we are within six feet of an uncontrolled release, it is imperative that we move water and move more of it. We are very appreciative that you and your agency recognized that fact and changed 

the standard. That sent an important signal. 

We now need to go to the next step and adjust standards in the 

Lower Sheyenne, and we are hopeful that we can make that case 

in as persuasive a way as we did on the Upper Sheyenne. 

Let me go to an issue that had been raised by my farmers, and 

it is the number one issue with EPA in my State other than Devil 

Lake. That is the question of the oil spill control issue with aboveground storage, below ground storage. And producers in my State 

are very concerned. I just had a Farmers Union fly in. This was 

the number one issue on their list. 

18 

One of my concerns was the requirement that a professional engineer must certified an oil spill plan. Is there a possibility that 

could be adjusted so that if they are following the basic design 

standards provided by the Extension Service and/or the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, that that would be acceptable 

without having an engineer certify it? 

I raised this because, number one, it costs a lot of money to get 

an engineer. Number two, in my State it is very hard to find additional engineering time because of the oil boom that is going on in 

North Dakota. So farmers are deeply concerned, number one, about 

the cost. Number two, how are they going to get an engineering 

firm to come and do certification of a plan on their property when 

they are completely overwhelmed with the demands of the oil industry? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am happy to look into the specifics. Those 

are under the SPCC rule making I believe. 

Senator CONRAD. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON. And as you know, we right now I believe have two 

rules out there, one that extends the compliance date, and that is 

probably shortly going to be finalized because we are out for comment and we need to finalize that rule. 

That was an intention to work with the industry within the confines of, of course, the other imperative which is we have to be, prevention is extraordinarily important when it comes to oil. I like 

Thad Allen’s remark that nothing good happens after oil hits the 

water. After that, everything is really just trying to minimize bad. 

So we need to balance that. But I think that extension is intended 

to give us time to deal with some of these issues on implementation. 

I am not sure if, as written, the regs would preclude your suggestion, but I am happy to work with you. 

Senator CONRAD. I would be very interested to pursue that. 

Second, just quickly if I could, is there anyway for EPA to more 

accurately identify which producers are required to comply by giving mapping areas where waters of the United States are likely to 

be impacted or those places where they are unlikely to be impacted? It seems like a common sense measure that there might be 

some broad guidance given as to those places that are especially 

vulnerable and those places that have very low risk of movement 

into waterways. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to work with your office of that suggestion, sir. 

Senator CONRAD. A final if I could, the recommendation came 

back from my farmers that the EPA take advantage of each states 

cooperative extension service by working with them to design an 

implementation and outreach strategy. 

Cooperative extension in my State, and I think it is true of almost all rural states, is out there in every county, have an ongoing 

relationship with producers, and an education effort I think would 

be enormously beneficial. Also kind of lower the heat and the temperature on this issue. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you for that suggestion. We are happy to 

incorporate that. That is a great idea. And, Senator, thank you for 

your leadership on Devil Lake in particular. 

19 

Senator CONRAD. It is absolutely the most incredible experience 

that we have had, this lake that just keeps going up and up. We 

know in 4,000 years of history three times it has had an uncontrolled release, only in those days very sparsely populated. If we 

have an uncontrolled release now out of the east side, it will be an 

unmitigated disaster. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator Conrad. 

In Senator Nelson’s absence, we go to Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

welcome Administrator Jackson. I think I am one of the few members on the Committee that also serves on the Environment and 

Public Works Committee so we have done work together before, 

and I appreciate your hard work and candid nature. I also appreciate some of the work you did down in the Gulf during the oil 

spill. Thank you for that. 

Speaking of oil, a number of us had a meeting with you, and I 

am glad you came to it. That was good you were there to talk about 

the ethanol blend and the delays there. I just want say we continue 

to be concerned. I know that EPA will soon be ready to announce 

its decision on a waiver but I encourage you to make that decision 

as soon as possible. 

I see Senator Thune over there. A number of us have States 

where we are waiting on biofuels. As I said at that meeting, it is 

not a biofuel plant that blew up in the middle of a corn field. That 

is a good fuel and we think it is part of our energy future as we 

go forward. 

We can talk about that in a minute. The second thing is the dust 

issue which I think that has been covered so I am not going to go 

on about that. 

Another thing I wanted to raise is Senator Lugar and I are putting a bill out that looks at, I have been trying to figure out with 

all the good intentions how we keep cracking up against each other 

on some of these agriculture issues. I really think that sometimes 

people while they are trying to do good work at EPA do not think 

about the repercussions on our farmers and what it will mean, 

whether it is the dust issue, whether it is in the manure issue, 

whether it is the milk issue. There have been a number of things 

lately. 

I do not think it is because they are trying to hurt these farmers 

but I think it sometimes has that effect. 

So Senator Lugar and I came up with one idea. It will not solve 

everything. I know you have been getting feedback. But looking at 

the Science Advisory Board that is headed by a Minnesotan which 

is great but we realize that none of the people on there really have 

an agriculture background and there is something like 50 people on 

there. 

So we are putting together a bill that we call Representation for 

Farmers Act, to see if some of those people, we are suggesting 

three, could be appointed by the USDA so that we can try it to get 

some of that input from the agriculture community. 

We have run it by, it is supported by the Farmers Union, the 

Farm Bureau, the Corn Growers Association, the National Council 

of Farmer Coops, the National Milk Producers Federation, wheat 

growers, and we have just been doing it for three days. 

20 

So I just want you to consider it and we would love to have your 

support. I think it could go a long way just on the front end. And 

I do not think it is going to solve everything. There is always going 

to be some tension but I think it is something that we will want 

to look at. 

I wanted to ask you about what is going on with the E-15. And 

do you anticipate an announcement very soon regarding at least 

the 2007 and newer vehicles and what is happening with the waivers? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator, and I look forward to taking 

a look at your forthcoming legislation. So thank you. 

On E-15, as you know, we have been awaiting test results. The 

tests are done by our partners and friends over at the Department 

of Energy on a number of vehicles. We have most of the results 

back. They are being QA/QCed and reviewed by my staff. I am optimistic having seen the results so far for 2007 and newer vehicles, 

Tier 2 vehicles essentially. 

We are waiting one last set of results. They are tear down test 

results. I spoke to Secretary Chu yesterday and he confirmed that 

he intends and believes they are on track to get us those results 

by September 30. 

Given that, we are prepared to render our waiver decision within 

two weeks following receipt of those tests, and in fact, have obviously been working on this issue for quite some time. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I understand. And then there is going to be 

another series of tests after that or this is the first grouping of 

tests and then is there another grouping? 

Ms. JACKSON. Correct. There are other tests that have already 

been begun but they are taking a bit longer on other vehicles. And 

through many discussions and the one you and I were both present 

at, it was decided that one of the things that would help the industry and the petitioner would be to get at least a decision on that 

which we had complete data for. 

So for 2007 these are really the tier two vehicles but the shorthand is 2007 and later. The brief was that we should get the information we have and make a decision there. 

There are also other issues that will affect ethanol and E–15. To 

the extent that they touch EPA, we have been coordinating those. 

Some of them do not affect EPA at all. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Just again I want to urge as we did 

at that meeting, the sooner we can go forward with this the better. 

I just think the science is on our side on this end. 

I am also concerned about various labels. I have said this. We 

just have to make sure that we do this as quickly as possible. 

Another thing. The EPA recently announced it would exempt 

dairy farmers from the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Act. I have cosponsored legislation to make sure that this 

policy is put into place as soon as possible. What is the status of 

implementing EPA’s decision to exempt dairy farmers from this 

law that was intended to prevent oil spills? 

I do not mean to keep bringing up oil spills but I will just do it. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is quite all right. The exemption for milk, for 

containers, is expected to be completed by February but the news 

is that the containers would be regulated come November of this 

21 

year unless we extended the deadline. That extension will likely be 

final in mid October. So within weeks. 

So they will not be regulated and then the exemption, the full 

exemption for milk will be following in February. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am running out of time so I am just going 

to put on the record some of the questions that I have on atrazine 

as well as the boiler MACT rule. There is concern, a lot of concern 

about that in my State and some of the other things. Thank you 

very much. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator STABENOW. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Administrator Jackson. 

Let me first say I also thank you for joining us in a very tragic 

situation with the Kalamazoo River with the oil spill that occurred 

a while ago and I appreciate your willingness to come out as quickly as you did and the efforts that are going on are very important 

that we make sure this is cleaned up as quickly as possible and 

does not happen again. 

As a preface to my question, I have been involved in agriculture 

committees for a long time and have been working on pesticide 

issues actually a long time. I would urge you to really take the 

time necessary to bring all parties to the table to work out a balanced approach going forward on this. 

When I was in the statehouse, I led an effort that took about a 

year to bring all the players together from farmers and environmentalists and agricultural business community. Everybody. We 

had everybody. 

It took a while but we came up with something that made sense 

and it was science-based and it was something in the end that was 

embraced by everyone to go forward because it was certainty because it was science-based but it was also addressing the broader 

goals and so on. 

I would strongly urge you to take whatever time is necessary to 

do that because this is an incredibly important and impactful issue 

for us in agriculture. 

On to my questions. When we look at a state like mine that has 

great diversity of crops, more diversity of crops than any other 

state except California, one that the prescriptive rule is not going 

to apply across the board to all of our different producers, I have 

concerns about what appears to be gray areas here in this permitting process. You have talked about some. But as I understand the 

rule that has been proposed in the Clean Water Act general permit, 

outside of the four areas specified, agriculture activities are not included. 

This would suggest that producers may be liable in that they 

would have to apply for an individual permits. As I am sure is the 

case in a lot of places, I know producers in Michigan that could 

apply pesticides which drift or by drift or accidental application 

could flow to waters of the United States such as our beautiful 

Great Lakes, that could happen. 

22 

But while I imagine permitting for the hundreds of thousands of 

farms is not practical, is EPA planning to address any agricultural 

applications of pesticides not outlined in the general permit? 

Ms. JACKSON. Let me make sure, Senator, I am answering your 

question. We do not cover terrestrial applications in the general 

permit. That is something that we worked very hard to ensure we 

were clear on. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. Are you saying that is exempt, those agricultural practices? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our proposal, we do not cover terrestrial applications of pesticides and does not cover spray drift, does not alter existing provisions in the Clean Water Act that provide exemptions 

for irrigation return flows or agricultural storm water runoff. 

So those are already features that we worked into our discussions on the general permit as it already stands. I think your question had more to do with other potential opportunities. There are 

some places where pesticides are applied over water, certain producers 

Senator STABENOW. Or near. 

Ms. JACKSON. Or near, yes. If it is just drift issue, that is not covered. We would welcome the opportunity and we continue discussions with those. It is a fairly small number of cases where the 

question is they know that they apply to water and they are looking at the general permit and wondering if that can cover them. 

We probably are not ready yet to make a final determination. 

That is something that has come out during public comment but 

we welcome the opportunity to discuss it further. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. The Clean Water Act clearly 

states also in the definition of point source that agriculture storm 

water discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture are 

excluded. 

How may this limit a producer’s liability in regards to any type 

of permit? 

Ms. JACKSON. So they are exempt activities under the Clean 

Water Act so they would not then be regulated activities under this 

permit, meaning that those activities would not require a permit as 

was proposed. I should caveat by saying we have a proposed permit. We do not have a final at this point. 

Senator STABENOW. Then if I might just quickly on integrated 

pest management plans which are so important. Michigan State 

University has been involved in working on many of those working 

with experts on techniques for decades. 

The plans are broad in scope. They cover more than just pesticide use. They also guide growers in reporting and record keeping. How does the EPA work with USDA to consider growers’ work 

with integrated pest management plans and are such plans helpful 

to prevent future redundancy and paperwork? 

Ms. JACKSON. Integrated pest management is a win-win for everyone. I mean pesticides cost money so growers love when they 

can minimize the use of pesticides, and they certainly do not to run 

it off into water because that is not working. The leadership that 

USDA has shown, the leadership that your State has shown, Senator, in running a wetlands, in thinking these issues through and 

23 

in its regulatory program is very important to our work so thank 

you. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Madam Administrator, thank you for being with 

us today. 

I want to associate myself with the comments that were made by 

the Senator from Nebraska. The Environmental Protection Agency 

has become public enemy number one of our farmers and ranchers, 

and over the August break I had the opportunity to meet with corn 

growers, wheat growers, soybean growers, cattle producers, pork 

producers. I am sure lots of others. 

But each of these groups have issues that were specific to their 

industry but they all have one common concern, and that was the 

overreaching EPA regulations and the harm that they are doing to 

their industry in the rural areas. That comes in lots of areas. 

It is greenhouse gas regulations. It is threats to regulate dust. 

The band of atrazine. It just seems like ag producers are in the 

cross hairs of the EPA. 

And in every case there are actions that drive up costs, drive 

down the profits of family farms and ranches. It just seems to me 

that we are losing our way when you have people in rural America 

asking the Federal Government not for help but just to stop hurting our rural communities. 

And at the same time we got decisions that could be helpful such 

as the E–15 issue which the Senator from Minnesota mentioned 

that remain undecided. I am pleased to hear that process is moving 

forward. 

But our ag produces are the best stewards of our land and of our 

environment. They go to work each day just not to make a living 

but to feed the world and to preserve the land for future generations. 

They are very frustrated, and I just want to read you a quote 

from the panel that will follow you from Mr. Rich Hillman, who is 

a rice, soybean, and wheat producer, and he states that farmers 

have never felt more challenged and more threatened in their livelihood than they do today from the continuous onslaught regulations and requirements from the EPA. 

He goes on to say, ‘‘The EPA proposals are overwhelming to 

farmers and ranchers, and they are creating a cascade of costly requirements that are likely to drive individual farmers to the tipping point. In addition to driving up the cost of producing food, 

fiber, and fuel, these proposals highlight EPA’s goal of controlling 

land use and water supplies. In many cases they will bring citizen 

suit enforcement and judicial review of individual farming practices.’’ End quote. 

I will tell you that is what I heard. That is what I heard from 

the agricultural groups, individual produces all across South Dakota. I know at times that out here what seems to make sense just 

really does not in the rural areas of our country. I make that as 

an observation and express the frustration that I heard from individual produces during the August break. 

I do want to come back to the E–15 issue. As I heard it, we are 

looking at probably final data in the end of this month and then 

24 

shortly after that, a couple of weeks perhaps, a decision on E–15. 

That is just with regard to 2007 vehicles and newer. 

How about 2001 to 2007 vehicles? 

Ms. JACKSON. For 2001 to 2007 that testing is also ongoing. It 

is taking a bit longer. I believe those test results are due to begin 

by the end of the year, the calendar year. And EPA will be in a 

position to make a determination as we see the data obviously. 

But we will again strive to be expeditious in our decision making 

and review of the test data. 

Senator THUNE. Just coming back to making two announcements 

on E–15, does not in some way two announcements actually create 

more consumer confusion on the status of E–15? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly I guess that is one way to look at it but 

we were asked and have talked to the applicant who requested E– 

15 about whether some signal, we heard lots of concerns about 

their needing to be a signal that this was not going to be forbidden, 

this blend. 

As we started to get the data back, what we committed to and 

what we talked about was moving quickly in pieces admittedly but 

in an attempt to give that signal. 

Senator THUNE. We are right now 10 months past the statutory 

deadline for a decision on that. The 2007 and newer vehicles decision seems to me again that when you create this sort of a bifurcated approach to this that you in some respects create even more 

confrontation than maybe perhaps already exists. 

But let me ask you with regard to the Department of Energy’s 

testing on E–15. Are you aware of any driveability or parts compatibility issues with 2001 and new vehicles that are directly related 

to the use of E–15? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am not aware of them but we have not received that information so that probably is not a complete answer 

because we do not have the data. 

Senator THUNE. Are you aware of any evidence that E–15 would 

damage vehicles older than 2001? In other words, vehicles manufactured before 2001? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not personally aware of any data or any test 

that has actually been—— 

Senator THUNE. You are saying you do not think they are testing 

vehicles that are older than 2001? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not believe so, sir. 

Senator THUNE. I hope we get this resolved as quickly as possible 

because this is one thing, and you were right about the signal. This 

is an important signal to the industry. It is important to agriculture to get this issue settled. 

It seems like—I visited Oak Ridge. I visited NREL. The testing 

has been going on for an awfully long time. It seems they would 

have more than adequate data to get this issue settled and I would 

hope that they would be able to at least for 2001 vehicles forward 

approve it, and hopefully soon so that we do not create even more 

uncertainty than we already have. 

I have another question, Madam Chair. I see my time has expired, that I can submit for the record. I will say one of the things 

again that it really concerned me about some of the things that are 

happening over at your agency, the more recent one of these is 

25 

dust. There is a tremendous amount of concern about that proposed 

legislation as well which I got an earful about while I was traveling 

during the month of August. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JACKSON. There is no proposed regulation. So perhaps we 

can get the word out there that EPA has proposed no regulation 

on dust and I committed earlier to doing some listening sessions 

before we even undertake such actions. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. Senator ROBERTS. I am sorry. I missed that. Was that dust, there 

would be no regulations on dust? 

Ms. JACKSON. What I said, Senator, in my statement is that 

there is no proposal on dust. We have a recommendation from one 

of our scientists—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I wish you could stop it. We just had a heck 

of a dust storm out in Kansas. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. I think you used to call it rural fugitive dust. 

I will have more to say on that topic in just a minute. 

How are you doing? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am fine. Thank you, sir. Sorry about the dust 

storm. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you for coming out to Kansas. Actually 

you sent a team of experts out to Kansas. We would have welcomed 

you to see that rather remarkable sight in Treece. I think you remember that. They did good work. 

And the State of Kansas stepping up and the citizens of Treece 

will soon be able to move where financially they could not before, 

and that was a terrible waste site. It was very dangerous and you 

did a good job on that and I want to thank you for that. 

Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said especially Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, the Chairman, everybody here, also on the other side of the aisle. 

How many people know that Devil Lake is named after Senator 

Conrad. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. It is the same thing as Senator Thune just 

said. I mean I cannot go to an agricultural meeting with any commodity group, any farm organization without them saying what on 

earth is going back there. It is usually a you-guys thing. What are 

you guys doing back there? Guys is not gender related. 

I say I am an us-guys. I am not a you-guy. And probably 8 times 

out of 10, it comes down to the EPA and what we think is questionable in challenged science is doing in regards more to agriculture 

and our national economy and our national security because agriculture does affect that. 

88 percent of the land in Kansas is utilized for some form of agriculture production with 61 percent of the total in crop land, 34 percent pasture land, very similar to the Dakotas, Nebraska. 

Having an abundance of productive farm ground allows Kansas 

to rank in the top five nationally in the exports of wheat, grain, 

sorghum, sunflowers, live animals and meats, as well as hides and 

skins. 

26 

One in five of our folks out there are involved in agriculture in 

one way or another. So that is really just stating the obvious, and 

I am stating the obvious again and again. I apologize for doing 

that. It is a terribly important and I think it is reflective of all of 

agriculture all across the country. 

Animal feeding operators, custom harvesters, chemical applicators, flour millers, even public health officials influence the environment. Some activities do actually create dust—I will come back 

to that in a minute—while others do use chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers to grow the food and fiber. 

It really keeps us from starvation and malnutrition around the 

world. I always put out in Southern Command there are 31 nations 

down south. The average age of the folks down there which is 14. 

They are malnourished. 

If all of a sudden you have a disaster that hits like in Haiti and 

other places in the world, we have the ability and the farmer has 

the capability of this production miracle to immediately step forward and provide help and assistance. 

So the thing I would like to point out too is in order to turn a 

profit, they must protect the land and water. They do not have a 

choice. So it is not only that we all want to see clean air and clean 

water, that is the ‘‘While I’’ speech, while we want clean air and 

clean water, let me point out that this is not the way to do it in 

terms of the regulatory means that we do this. 

The farmer would never put the seed in the ground if he or she 

was not an optimist. But they are not as optimistic today about 

how they will comply with the laundry list of regulations that the 

Senator has just mentioned, Senator Thune. 

They are not as optimistic about how they can continue with this 

kind of situation. The list goes for everything from expanding the 

definition of waters of the United States to tightening the national 

ambient air quality standards for particulate matter to lowering 

the threshold for inorganic arsenic in the ground water to opening 

up an unscheduled review of atrazine. 

I have the head of the Kansas corn producers to speak to that, 

and he has a unique tale to tell about what happened after he 

stood before the Scientific Advisory Panel and probably even testifying before us, Madam Chairman. 

Are you still there? Great. I expect a couple ‘‘Amens’’ from you 

but any rate. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Very unusual circumstance and he will testify 

to that and it is a very worrisome thing about a chilling effect on 

people in any farm organization willing to talk about these things. 

Then you want to regulate the range burning on the Flint Hills 

which has been a tradition for many years and then to also regulating dioxin below naturally occurring background levels. All of 

that has Kansans concerned. 

It is the third time around for me. I was a bucket totter for my 

predecessor in the Congress, a staffer. I was administrative assistant, and finally he got so upset about this business back in the 

1970s about rural fugitive dust and it became almost a laughing 

matter until farmers figured out that the EPA was serious. 

27 

So I tried to track down the person who actually was in the business to promulgate, that is a great word, to promulgate in the Federal Register what was going to happen to rural fugitive dust. It 

took me three days. 

Finally I found this very nice lady in EPA who was from Massachusetts. Where else? I agreed with her because she said, ‘‘Do you 

realize how many gravel road you have out there in Kansas?’’ I 

said, ‘‘Yes, ma’am, I have been down about everyone of them.’’ 

‘‘Do your realize how much dust you are creating in regards to 

cattle trucks or grain trucks or pickups or whatever?’’ ‘‘Yes, 

ma’am,’’ I said, ‘‘Do you realize what we have done in terms of conservation, the Great Plains conservation program, and all?’’ I listed 

all the things we have done for the dirty 30s. 

Finally I said, ‘‘What do you want us to do? What is your suggestion? How can we get away from you putting the EPA sights on us 

out here for rural fugitive dust which I found rather unique?’’ 

She said, ‘‘Well, why do you not just send out water trucks at 10 

o’clock in the morning and then again at 3 o’clock in the afternoon 

and spray down those roads?’’ Pause. ‘‘It is a great idea. Could you 

provide the trucks and the water?’’ Pause. ‘‘No.’’ 

That was sort of a standoff. Then it sort of, like other dust, settled. I do not think we ever got in the business of fining farmers 

or locking them up or whatever it is if they decided to go in a pickup to town down a gravel road. 

And then in the 1980s it was back. I do not know why you do 

these things. I mean you are supposed to be digital now. Throw all 

those files the way. They dug out the files and brought the thinking back. I do not know what happened when you all came in first. 

You probably said, ‘‘Well, let us take a look at what we have 

done in the past and what we need to do in the future.’’ Now by 

golly we have rural fugitive dust back again. 

Are you going to tell me we are going to have to get more water 

and water trucks and do that in the morning and the afternoon? 

One other thing. 

Navigable waters. Applicable to farm ponds where our critters go 

into cool off. We do not swim in those farm ponds. We do not drink 

any water out of those farm ponds. Most of the time they dry up, 

and no self-respecting duck would ever land on those farm ponds, 

and yet they could be declared navigable waters. 

Then that sort of faded away and it is back and it is like Lucy 

and Charlie Brown kicking the football, and I cannot remember 

now, I think in the little circle of what he said in the cartoon it 

was A–A-R–R-G–H-H! I do not know how to pronounce that. Some 

farmers do. 

But instead of picking up the football, I think it is sort of like 

an anvil down there, switching it, and boom he hits right into 

things like rural fugitive dust and navigable waters. 

Those are the ones that you can point to with some degree of, 

it is not levity. It is just to illustrate the point. But Jere White is 

here. He is from the Kansas Corn Growers. He has quite an experience to tell about atrazine. It actually takes the place of multiple 

pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, whatever that it is kind of used 

for at levels that we think are safe. And he has really paid a price 

for it. 

28 

So here is my suggestion. 

Chairman LINCOLN. You need to wrap it up at this point. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, I am five minutes over but there is nobody here except you, Madam Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. You did not recognize me first so you got to 

pay for it at the end. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. You told me to come here off the floor and 

raise hell so that is what I am trying to do here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Historically the Department of Agriculture and 

the Food and Drug Administration, the EPA, and Health and 

Human Services, even the Department of Labor, and yes, even the 

CIA—I used to be chairman of intelligence because of the importance of our food supply and safety of our food supply, et cetera, 

et cetera, they worked together on many projects to help protect 

our Nation’s food supply, environmental quality, and the economic 

viability of production agriculture. 

How can the American public be sure that your agency is protecting scientific integrity through a risk-based approach rather 

than a precautionary stance to regulate dust, water, pesticides, 

chemicals? 

Is there any sort of cost benefit yardstick that all agencies should 

sort of agree on, and say, look, this is not the old testament. This 

is the new testament with all of the scientific means that we have 

today in a parts per trillion scientific world. 

I mean there is a little bit of something in everything. I am just 

wondering if all the agencies could not get together and say, look, 

to prevent the civil suits that are popping all over the countryside 

and which, as Mr. White can testify to and how he got dragged into 

it is rather amazing, but at any rate, could there not be some yardstick that we would all agree on and say, okay, from a stability 

standpoint instead of changing the rules every decade and coming 

back to rural fugitive dust for the fourth time when the administration changes next, it is regardless of whether it is Republican 

or Democrat, but at any rate can we not have some kind of a common measuring thing on it? This is what we are going to do and 

we are going to do it in a unified way and a regular way. Please. 

Administrator Jackson. At the risk of going further, why do I not 

simply answer, sir, by saying that, first, there are no fugitive dust 

rules. We have a scientific group, a Federal Advisory Committee, 

who have recommended particulate matter health-based standards. 

Senator ROBERTS. Can you send them out during harvest? That 

would be a good deal. Just send them out during harvest and they 

can drive the grain truck. 

Ms. JACKSON. But what I committed to is that we are not going 

to propose any rules or change any rules without embarking on a 

process to work with the agricultural community. The rules are not 

for agriculture. Particulate matter comes out of trucks, comes out 

of diesel, and are a huge concern around ports. There are plenty 

areas in this country where PM10 emissions are killers. 

29 

Senator ROBERTS. I know the lawn mowers play a big part of 

that in the Kansas City area around August which is another problem but I am not going to get into that. 

What about a common yardstick? And the other thing is, certainly mentioned by the Chairman and the Ranking Member you 

know keep us posted and we can have a good dialogue but, man, 

if you could just get all these alphabet soup agencies together and 

say here is where we think we are. These are acceptable levels. 

That may change I mean if there is some terrible circumstance but 

it would certainly give us some stability. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. Senator, I am happy, one thing I take 

from this hearing is the need to stay close to this Committee. There 

were several requests that the Committee have much more information and consideration of what we are doing and we are happy 

to do that, and we have and I have worked very hard with Secretary Vilsack to ensure that the most important department with 

respect to these issues that we work very closely. I will redouble 

those efforts. I am happy to do that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Thank you, Administrator Jackson. I will just reiterate what I 

think most of the members here have all expressed, and that is, 

when we go home to our district, we talk to the people that we represent. And I will be honest with you. I am going to make no apologies whatsoever for standing up for the hard-working farm families 

across this country that really do work hard day in and day out to 

provide the safest and abundant and affordable supply of food and 

fiber but they do it with great passion, Madam Administrator. 

They do it with a great passion towards not only what they are 

doing but how they are doing it. It is with great care and great 

compassion for the land and for the environment, and I think often 

times they feel like when they hear things from Washington that 

they are not doing anything right or that they are constantly being 

asked to do things that are impossible. 

So I would just say if there is anything, we would like to ask that 

there is communication. I know they want to be included. I think 

they feel like that they have had no role in these settlement agreements, that EPA has worked with other groups, the NGOs, the environmental groups, and yet agriculture does not feel like they 

have had a seat at the table. 

So I would ask of you to engage with them. Try to put yourself 

in their shoes and better understand what their challenges are. 

I tour the state frequently, and whether it is talking to farmers 

or educators or anybody else, small businesses and others across 

our State, when they look at Washington, they say do not lower 

your expectations of us. We want to do the best that we can possibly do, whether it is teaching children or growing food and fiber, 

whether it is creating jobs or whatever. But give us goals that we 

can reach. 

I think that the frustration in so many ways is that they feel like 

that the goals and the parameters that are being sent for them are 

things they cannot reach. 

30 

With the slim margins that they are already facing and the fact 

that day to day the variables that they face could cause them really 

to go out of business, and regulations and other things on top of 

that just exacerbate that problem. 

So we certainly ask you to work with us. It is great to work with 

Secretary Vilsack. He is a good man, and the Department of Agriculture is great. 

For those of us that are out there in the field with our constituents, it is so critical for them to have a seat at the table. We just 

really would like to ask you to hopefully help us make that happen. 

Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate it. We look forward to working with you. 

I would like to ask the witnesses on the second panel to come forward and be seated. 

Our panel includes Rich Hillman, who is the Vice President of 

the Arkansas Farm Bureau. Jay Vroom, who is President and 

Chief Executive Officer of Croplife America. And Jere White, who 

is the Executive Director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association. 

Senator Roberts will be back so do not worry, Mr. White, he is 

not going anywhere. 

Gentleman, your written testimonies will be submitted for the 

record so I would like to ask you to try to keep your remarks within that five minute rule. We are very grateful that you are here. 

It is my pleasure to welcome a fellow Arkansan and a good friend 

of mine, Rich Hillman, somebody I know who has had a pair of 

boots on and knows what it is like out there in the field. 

Mr. Hillman has been a rice, soybean, and wheat farmer since 

1983 in Lonoke County, Arkansas. He served on the Arkansas 

Farm Bureau Board of Directors since 2001. He is a leader in the 

agriculture community in my home State, and we are fortunate 

that he is here with us today to share his insight into running a 

farming operation and the effects of EPA regulations. We are grateful to have you. 

I also want to thank Jay Vroom. It is a pleasure to have him also 

on our witness panel. Mr. Vroom is president and CEO of Croplife 

America where he has been since 1989. He has been a lifelong advocate of U.S. agribusiness trade associations. 

Mr. Vroom was born and raised on a grain and livestock farm in 

north central Illinois which he owns to this day. So we are grateful 

not only for Jay’s understanding of the agribusiness trade arena 

but also his understanding of what goes on a farm on a day-to-day 

basis. 

It is also our pleasure to have with us today Jere White. Mr. 

White is a fifth generation livestock producer in Garnett, Kansas. 

He serves on several board of directors for various agricultural organizations and has been Executive Director of Kansas Corn since 

1988. 

Today he provides testimony as chairman of the Triazine Network which represents atrazine and related triazines which farmers use of herbicides. 

So we will start with Mr. Hillman and go down the line. Senator 

Roberts will be back shortly. 

Thank you. 

31 

STATEMENT OF RICH HILLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ARKANSAS 

FARM BUREAU, CARLISLE, ARKANSAS 

Mr. HILLMAN. Madam Chair and members of the Committee, my 

name is Rich Hillman. I am a fifth-generation rice, wheat, soybean 

the farmer from Carlisle, Arkansas. I am vice president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau and I am pleased to offer this testimony on 

behalf of our members across our great State. 

Let me begin by saying that farmers and ranchers have never 

felt more challenged and more threatened concerning their livelihood than they do today from the continuous onslaught of regulations and requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

I hope my testimony today somehow represents the frustration that 

Arkansas farmers and ranchers are feeling. 

Over the past few decades agriculture has worked with USDA to 

make enormous strides in its environmental performance by adopting a range of practices and measures. We are proud of our accomplishment and believe that our overall environmental footprint is 

smaller today than it was 50 years ago. Incidentally in that same 

time period we have seen to double our production. 

Chairman Lincoln, as you stated in your opening comments, 

there are many regulatory issues facing farmers and ranchers that 

are very concerning. I would like to expand on a few. 

Currently in Arkansas all farmers and ranchers are required to 

have a restricted-use pesticide license. Chairman Lincoln, in your 

opening statement also mentioned FIFRA and the Clean Water Act 

and the current efforts of the EPA to require a pesticide general 

permit, an additional permit. This would mean not only additional 

expense but it would also place a burden on the farmer, rancher 

to apply for and to receive a permit every time we had to treat our 

crop. When insects attack, they usually come with a vengeance. In 

the matter of hours, they can destroy our postures and other crops. 

Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your leadership and 

work on this matter and we strongly support your legislation, Senate Bill 3735. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the other 

members of the Senate Agricultural Committee to join with you 

and Senator Chambliss in cosponsoring that Senate Bill 3735. Agriculture needs your help now. 

In Arkansas for over 20 years, we have had a permitting program in place requiring all animal feeding operations with liquid 

manure systems to obtain no discharge permits. The Farm Bureau 

was a key supporter in the creation of this permitting process. 

EPA recently announced that the Illinois River watershed in Arkansas had been selected as one of its priority watersheds. This 

has resulted in two noticeable events. The first, the announcement 

of a TMDL study and increased inspections and enforcement of 

AFOs. 

At the same time EPA has insisted Arkansas State agencies 

start a process of developing a methodology to establish numerical 

standards for nutrients and developing a confined animal feeding 

operations CAFO permit. 

The potential to discharge language in CAFO was very vague 

and confusing. It does not clearly define who must apply. We believe this is intentional and it is an attempt to avoid the court’s 

ruling that only those actual discharges must obtain a permit. 

32 

Chairman Lincoln, as you well know poultry producers in Arkansas are struggling. Their profit margins are razor thin. They are 

good stewards of the land, and additional regulations add additional expenses which they can simply not afford. 

Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures is another thorn 

in agriculture’s side. EPA wants us, farmers and ranchers, to build 

the retaining walls around fuel tanks in the middle of our fields 

and pastures. This would cost us thousands of dollars to mitigate 

what? EPA is attempting to address a problem that simply is not 

there. 

In closing, the farms and ranches across our Nation are privately 

held land that are coveted and cared for. They have provided not 

only a living for hundreds of thousands of farm families but have 

secured our Nation by feeding it. 

Year after year through floods, droughts, we have provided. Why 

would anyone want to keep us from doing that? Why would any 

agency try and change what we do best? And that is to feed this 

great Nation and the rest of the world. 

Madam Chairman, I commend you for hosting this hearing and 

for all of your work on behalf of agriculture in Arkansas and across 

this great country. I would be glad to entertain any questions at 

this time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hillman can be found on page 

47 in the appendix.] 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you, Rich, and I know you are missing the first day of the conference in Arkansas so if you need me 

to write an excuse for you just see me after the hearing. 

Mr. HILLMAN. I would appreciate that. They are watching incidentally by internet so that put a little additional pressure on me 

but I thank you again. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LINCOLN. We are glad you are here. 

Mr. Vroom. 

STATEMENT OF JAY VROOM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CROPLIFE AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VROOM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Roberts and 

other members of the Committee so much for convening this hearing to look at the entire landscape of environmental regulation facing the American farm families. 

I am indeed here today representing Croplife America, the trade 

association, as you indicated, that represents those companies that 

provide virtually all of the crop protection materials used by American farmers but I am also personally held accountable by another 

authority which is that group of family members who are at home 

in Illinois trying to harvest right now. 

In fact, I spoke with one of my brother-in-laws this morning who 

was gracious enough when I told him I was coming up here to visit 

with the Committee that he said, wait a minute, let me stop and 

shut the engine off. We need to talk. So I barely made it up here 

in time. 

So I do feel a personal responsibility to this as well as a professional one. I will speak about those regulatory matters, some of 

which have already been delved into quite extensively already here 

33 

this afternoon with regard to crop protection materials and EPA’s 

regulation of those materials as well as those pesticide materials 

that are used in non- agricultural activities. I will talk specifically 

about one of those as presented by our partner association, RISE. 

But as I have listened so far, the one thing that really has struck 

me is, oh, my goodness, is it any wonder that the American public 

is upset? The news media repeats this for us everyday, especially 

as we are anticipating the upcoming elections, that the American 

public are fed up and 

sick and tired of business as usual here Washington, DC. 

And as I think about it with respect to the things that we know 

best in the crop protection space and the interface with EPA, it 

really is a tale of three conflicting laws, three conflicting and out 

of touch and redundant federal agencies and the two offices within 

one of those federal agencies that just cannot quite get it right. 

We talk to those federal agencies a lot, of course, and with regard 

to, for instance, NPDS Clean Water Act issue that has already 

been talked about a good bit, we do think that we are at a point 

where the proposal that you and Senator Chambliss have made 

with regard to the Senate bill that Mr. Hillman just described and 

endorsed, and we did too, is timely because without that kind of 

assistance from Congress we fear that we do have a train wreck 

ahead of us. 

With all due respect to Administrator Jackson’s explanation of 

the fact a few minutes ago, sitting in this chair, that the application of pesticides by farmers near water are not intended to be captured by this predatory regime and permitting, we all know that 

farmers farm near water. 

Most farmers hope they are near water and that water comes to 

help the crop grow. It is essential. So the NPDS regulatory and 

legal experts that we have retained as we have tried to work 

through this have told us with regard to decades of experience in 

the Clean Water Act and NPDS permitting, prior to this moment 

when it is now going to be applied to pesticides because of the 

Sixth Circuit decision, they have never seen an NPDS permit 

standstill or be adjusted to become more reasonable. 

It is always mission creep day after day after day. So it is clear 

to us that the American farmer should be concerned about this arriving on his or her doorstep, not only in terms of regulatory burden but also in terms of the fact that it creates so much additional 

liability, and farmers including my brother-in-law who reminded 

me again this morning, sitting on the combine, are concerned about 

that liability. 

The Endangered Species Act, another place where we need help 

from Congress. Can you pass a law perhaps or at least help provide 

more guidance and instruction to EPA and those other conflicting 

laws and regulatory agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service who keep just talking past 

each other. 

I just read a report a couple days ago about the spotted owl. We 

remember that our friends in forestry endured a terrific calamity 

decades ago when it was decided by a federal court that old growth 

harvesting needed to stop in order to protect the spotted owl, an 

endangered species. 

34 

Yet this most recent report says that the populations of the spotted owl have continued to decline even though we have stopped 

harvesting in those old growth areas. 

The forestry industry is also an important customer of the pesticide industry and one that is going to be directly impacted by this 

NPDS permitting. 

Lastly, spray drift policy. Madam Chairman, you mentioned earlier in your opening remarks very serious concern and one where 

the agency just has not been able to focus on the clear and plain 

language in the statute of FIFRA that says that the risk standard 

is no unreasonable adverse effect. 

I would encourage you to guide, instruct the agency to make sure 

that when and if they do go about publishing a policy or regulation 

to govern spray drift that they always keep it connected to that 

risk standard that is in your statute. 

Thank you very much and I look forward to responding to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vroom can be found on page 66 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITE. 

STATEMENT OF JERE WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KANSAS 

CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, BARNETT KANSAS 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the Committee and Mr. Roberts for his attendance this afternoon. 

My name is Jere White, and I am the Executive Director of the 

Kansas Corn Growers Association and I do that role for Kansas 

Grain Sorghum as well. I appear today also as chairman of Triazine Network. The Triazine Network is not merely a coalition of 

agricultural groups but one that represents over 30 crops grown in 

over 40 states. Those crops include corn, citrus, tree fruit, sorghum, 

vegetables, grapes, sugar cane, macadamia nuts. If it is grown, 

there is a chance that it is touched by our organization. 

Atrazine is a herbicide that American farmers have used for 

weed control for more than 50 years. It has been found to be safe 

by the governments of Great Britain, Australia, and many countries including the U.S. EPA. 

This morning I learned that the World Health Organization has 

adopted a new water quality standard, drinking water quality 

standard, and that new standard is over 33 times the current U.S. 

standard, 33 times. 

Atrazine is one of the most steady molecules on earth. On multiple occasions over the last decade, EPA has declared the product 

safe after rigorous scientific review using the highest quality data, 

and even as recently as last July. 

However, within weeks of last summer’s positive report posted on 

their website, something happened, something that undermined all 

this deliberation, all this science. 

By the end of August of last year, a raft of spurious ecological 

epidemiology studies began to appear. They were promoted by trial 

attorneys, advanced by environmental groups with anti-agricultural agendas and their well-heeled PR advisors, and certainly 

35 

picked up and ran by scare articles in the New York Times and 

also the Huffington Post. 

Trial lawyers joined forces with environmental activists and 

sought to regulate through the courts what science could not support within the EPA regulatory process way back in 2004. 

For instance, the EPA began to make their determination that 

atrazine was safe to continue to use in an interim registration decision that was published in 2003. The first trial lawyer lawsuit was 

filed in Illinois in 2004. 

But this is a different game now. Last fall they found the EPA 

very receptive to take the bate. Media frenzy prompted the EPA to 

announce the new comprehensive scientific re-review of atrazine 

with a break pace of four SAPs between November of 2009 and just 

simply two weeks ago. Two more are scheduled quickly to follow in 

2011. 

Amazingly EPA actually cited the media and activist reports for 

re-opening a scientific review process they just put to rest. EPA 

was not scheduled to review atrazine again until 2013 as part of 

their scheduled review of all pesticides. 

In February an SAP considered the very studies EPA referenced 

to initiate this rush to re-review atrazine. Scientists at the SAP 

conclude that the overall quality of these studies was relatively, 

and certainly had the agency followed its own process of internal 

data evaluation prior to taking it to an SAP, it would have known 

that the studies were not useful in the regulatory process. 

This is just one way in which the agency’s rushed re- review does 

not align with the processes that have up until now confirmed the 

EPA reliance on the best quality data available. 

Growers and associations which have provided comments in support of atrazine are now being targeted by the activist trial attorneys. Subpoenas are being issued for massive, expensive, and timeconsuming production of records unrelated to any litigation. 

We are being harassed, even bullied, for daring to defend ourselves. The message is clear, if you stand up for atrazine you best 

be prepared to pay a price. 

I testified in support of atrazine at last week’s SAP, sharing our 

concerns over trial attorney harassment of stakeholders as part of 

my comments. The very next day activist attorneys sought and obtained subpoenas against Kansas Corn, Kansas Grain Sorghum, 

and me personally. 

These subpoenas, not only do they intend to come into my offices 

on the 30th without any prior discussion whether my office might 

be available, they require me to be a Garnett, Kansas on the 30th 

at 10 o’clock as well as Olathe, Kansas on the 30th at 10 o’clock, 

depending on which hat I am wearing I guess that day. Fortunately I will be in the Ukraine on the 30th at 10 o’clock. 

Most farmers live next to their fields. They raise their children 

in these environments; and if there was any real harm in atrazine, 

the American farmer would have been the first to notice and certainly the first to care. 

They value atrazine because it is effective and it is safe. That is 

why well over half of U.S. corn, two-thirds of sorghum, and about 

90 percent of sugar cane is protected from weeds by the use of 

atrazine. 

36 

For the farmer, however, atrazine is not a matter of politics. It 

is a matter of staying in business in what is still a rough economy. 

EPA estimated in 2006 that atrazine provides a $28 per acre 

benefit for corn, and while significant, we believe that number is 

actually much larger today. 

While environmental activists demonize atrazine, farmers know 

that atrazine enables an enormously productive benefit for the environment called conservation tillage. In 2008, for example, 64 percent of atrazine used in corn supported conservation agriculture 

practices that help sequester carbon, reduce fuel consumption, and 

improve a farm’s overall carbon footprint as well as reduce soil erosion. 

I realize the members of this distinguished body have many important issues before you today. EPA’s treatment of atrazine may 

not sound like a high priority but it is a matter of great importance 

to the farm economy. 

EPA at the highest levels needs to provide guidance to ensure 

that years of scientific review conducted under both Republican 

and Democratic administrations is not undermined. In addition, I 

believe our elected agricultural leaders must help EPA to understand the implications of their failure to do so. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. White can be found on page 75 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman LINCOLN. Thank all of you gentlemen for your testimony and we appreciate you coming before us today. 

Mr. Hillman, a few minutes ago you mentioned several concerns 

regarding the increased regulatory burden that farmers are facing 

these days and there is no doubt, as you mentioned, the margins 

are slim and really quite frankly as I mentioned so many times 

today the uncertainty and unpredictability of what you are up 

against whether it is regulation, weather, trade, price volatility, 

just a whole host of things. 

Of course, our State is diverse. In terms of farming operations, 

we have row crops in the east. We have forest in the south, and 

poultry and livestock throughout the State, and I know that all of 

our farmers all over the State are concerned about EPA’s aggressive regulatory approach. 

What in your view are the major EPA regulatory issues facing 

the producers in Arkansas if you had to just pick the two top ones? 

I know we have mentioned a lot here today. But what would you 

say are those top two for Arkansas? 

Mr. HILLMAN. Chairman Lincoln, I think that you did mention 

that the whole State would be affected by any and all. But I think 

at the top of the list, two, CAFO, the poultry industry, if this is 

enacted, if their feathers fall out of their house, or the dust, even 

in the ditch, not even in water, they will be regulated like they 

have never been before, certainly northwest Arkansas and also 

southwest Arkansas, and I mentioned in my testimony that the 

profit margin that these folks are having right now is actually 

razor thin. An additional expense, and make no mistake about it, 

the expense is going to be there. 

37 

The second would be the FIFRA. I think that would not only affect me as a row crop farmer, it would certainly affect the delta but 

it would affect the whole state as well. 

As I stated in my testimony, we currently already use and have 

and applying for and are trained for a restricted use license. We 

do that on the State level. Incidentally, we work well with all of 

our State agencies that oversee what we do for a living. This really 

would affect us. It would affect the whole State. You are talking 

about a whole new avenue of permitting. 

I know you said two but the spill prevention. You know for a 

smaller farmer having to go out there and build containment walls 

to the specs that the engineering firms deem necessary, I say again 

I do not know that there is a great problem with that whatsoever. 

So I guess that would be my comments. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Well, I just note your second issue there on 

the FIFRA. I remember as a child my dad taking great care in 

terms of what applications he made and how he made them, studying for the testing to be able to get that permit, not because he just 

wanted to pass because he wanted to do the right thing. 

I think often times when we find people here, bureaucrats in the 

regulatory agencies who have not walked in those boots they do not 

really understand the sense of pride and dedication that farm families all across this country have in producing a good quality crop 

with great respect to the environment and doing all that they can. 

We appreciate that. 

Mr. Vroom, you have had some insightful testimony regarding 

the history and the background of pesticide regulation. 

This Committee does have direct jurisdiction over FIFRA. It has 

served its purpose for many years in protecting both the environment and applicators. 

As you have noted, new developments under the Endangered 

Species Act and the Clean Water Act along with proposed spray 

drip guidance are threatening our FIFRA effective regulatory 

scheme. 

What are some of the specific instances where delays in that Endangered Species Act biological opinions will prohibit producers 

who utilize crop protection products? 

And I have to say you also mentioned the aerial applicators better known as crop dusters. When I was in high school, I learned 

how to fly from a crop duster who served his country in Vietnam 

as a pilot. They do a tremendous job. 

If you have ever been out there in those fields, as we have, and 

you know what happens when those planes come in and out over 

the fields, thinking about spray drift and other things like that it 

boggles your mind to think that you are going to be able to do what 

it is that they wanted you to do. 

Mr. VROOM. Well, so I think specific to your question it is really 

in the holistic context these different laws that are not designed to 

work together and now you know we have had them on the books 

like the Endangered Species Act and FIFRA together for more than 

35 years. 

For most of the time, there were not complex but extremist, activist organizations with very smart lawyers found favorable courtVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 30, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66276.TXT MICHA
38 

houses to go to and bring litigation that suddenly started to create 

this collision. 

Then out-of-court settlements that you have alluded to earlier 

where not all of the parties including our industry got to participate at the table for settlement discussions and you get outcomes 

that take valuable tools away from farmers which do not necessarily result in any benefit to the endangered species, a la, the 

spotted owl and old-growth timber that I mentioned earlier. 

So do we really want to look up and be 10 or 20 years down the 

road and have lost lots of important technology and still not benefiting those endangered species and suddenly 10 or 20 years from 

now or maybe even sooner the United States of America is a net 

food importer. 

I have had the opportunity, because a lot of our member companies are headquartered in Europe, to be there a lot this year, and 

I have heard over and over again the European Union is a net 35 

billion euro, that is more dollars than euros, food importer. 

Do we really want the United States of America to be there in 

a few years? And it is largely because of the precautionary principle of regulation of technology that has either been taken away 

from the European farmer or, in the case of biotechnology, has 

never been even made available to the European farmer. 

The American farmer is supplying some of that need through the 

production of soybeans that we export to the European Union but 

very little corn and corn products because again of that biotechnology restriction. 

So I think you need to really put it in that kind of context, and 

for those Americans who are not engaged in agriculture directly, in 

production agriculture, those of us need to understand that $100 

billion plus that Senator Chambliss mentioned of agricultural exports do not just go directly into the pocket of the American farmer. 

It is generating enormously powerful, great number of jobs at the 

docks loading the ships, in plants manufacturing food to you know 

higher values for export, all matter of great employment that adds 

in ripple effect to our economy. 

Again I think it needs to be put into holistic context. I am not 

here to just kind of whine about you know EPA and FIFRA and 

pesticide regulation but to ask that you know the country think 

about this and the Senate in particular think about the ability to 

encourage EPA to work with us. 

I honestly believe that Administrator Jackson does want to do 

the right thing. She has very personal ties with agriculture. She 

has a lot on her plate as you mentioned with the oil spill in the 

Gulf of Mexico and many other important issues. 

So if she can be encouraged along with her team to work more 

closely with all us in the agriculture community as you have been 

suggesting on both sides of the aisle here this afternoon, I think 

we can get back to the table and make that kind of progress to preserve the technologies the American farmer needs and ensure that 

we continue to be leaders in the world’s food and fiber and renewable production. 

Chairman LINCOLN. That is great. I think finding common 

ground and working together is going to be the critical part of this, 

39 

and you are exactly right. We need to work with the Administrator 

to reach that. 

Mr. White, we certainly appreciate your comments in the importance of atrazine to the production agriculture and certainly the 

vast body of scientific studies regarding that impact. It is critical 

for us to look at the science-based information that is there. 

If farmers lost their ability to use atrazine, how would it impact 

their farming operations, their costs, and those tilling practices 

that you mentioned? That would be I guess where I would want 

your input. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Really there are a couple of issues. There is a financial cost, and 

certainly if you use what I consider a conservative number by EPA, 

we are talking $28 an acre for corn. Less analysis has been done 

by the agency for grain sorghum and sugarcane. 

But beyond then when you look at the fact that atrazine is a 

produce that is used not necessarily very much today as a primary 

herbicide but it is an additive herbicide to a lot of the new technologies. 

So it has not been unusual at all when different companies introduce a new technology for controlling weeds, the next thing they 

do is introduce a new formulation that includes some atrazine in 

it, you know may be at a lower rate. 

So it is not just about the cost. It is about being able to control 

the weeds. It is about dealing with weed resistance issues with 

some of the more popular technologies that are out there. 

But the bigger question really, if there is anything bigger than 

atrazine and I have devoted a lot of my life the last 16 years to 

this issue, is the fact that with the 50 years of safe use, with literally 6,000 plus studies being a part of the database that has led 

EPA to arrive to the safety determination they have today, if you 

cannot defend atrazine, what product is it that we will be able to 

use? 

What product is out there that has that body of science today or 

will have in the future that the companies will invest you know 

tens of billions of dollars to defend? 

Quite frankly if this process goes the way it is going and the 

award for stakeholders to step up and support it is to get beat 

down by trial attorneys, how many are going to be willing to do 

that in the future? 

Chairman LINCOLN. That is exactly right. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. More especially 

in regards to this panel I thank the panel for taking the time. I 

know your time is very valuable. 

Pesticides like atrazine are subject to regular review. In fact, 

atrazine was re-registered in 2006, not scheduled for re-review 

until 2013. That is under the banner of stability and predictability. 

Always something could happen why you could have a special advisory, pardon me, a Scientific Advisory Panel meeting. 

But in October of last year, EPA scheduled an unprecedented 

four Scientific Advisory Panel meetings. Madam Chairman, everything is an acronym here. Those are called SAPs. So there were 

four SAPs within 11 months. 

40 

Since 2000, EPA reviews have included more than 16 opportunities for public comment including six SAP meetings convened 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenicide Act, 

FIFRA. 

I hate to admit this but I was a staffer for my predecessor in the 

House when FIFRA was first passed and he assigned me to go 

cover it one time because our agricultural assistant was sick. 

I attended the meeting. I had no idea what they were talking 

about and came back and told the congressmen, Keith Sebelius of 

the big First District of Kansas, do not ever assign me to that 

again, only to be assigned when I became a member of Congress 

to the subcommittee dealing with FIFRA and dealing with George 

Brown of California at that time who knew more about it than anybody, and I was ranking member. 

Chairman LINCOLN. You were sapped there. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes. This SAP suddenly became known as Mr. 

FIFRA, and people there can testify that is the case, Mr. Vroom especially. 

And it is amazing what you can get acquainted with if you just 

have good staff that print things in large letters on cards and get 

you to read them. 

Here is what the situation is with Jere White, who is a great 

friend and takes his time and effort to represent the Kansas Corn 

Growers. 

You stated now in your oral and written testimony that you have 

recently been served a subpoena and you believe it to be because, 

as a leader of the Kansas Corn Growers Association, Kansas Corn 

Commission, and the Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association, you have been an active participant in promoting the beneficial uses of atrazine. 

The Chairman just asked you the question. You just responded. 

You are here in Washington today at your expense. Because you 

testified before the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel on atrazine, the 

plaintiff’s attorney from Holiday Shores Sanitary Distinct in the 

State of Illinois court case has asked for you to provide all correspondence, memoranda, notes, studies, and surveys to and from 

Jere White, Kansas Corn and Kansas Grain Sorghum Commission 

with regard to atrazine. 

I got this subpoena. I mean I did not get the subpoena but we 

may if this continues. I do not know the difference between appearing before a Scientific Advisory Panel then having some trial lawyer send you a subpoena from another state, a man who farms in 

one state then gets a subpoena from somebody from another state 

simply because he has the courage and the leadership to head up 

a farmer organization that stood before a Scientific Advisory Panel, 

what the heck is the difference between that and coming to the 

Congress to testify. 

Maybe you are going to get a subpoena because you came here 

and testified before us. Maybe the Chairman and I will get a subpoena. That is something to think about. I had not really thought 

about that until right now. 

Then if you look at this, Madam Chairman. Let me get back to 

this. This is what he is supposed to be deposed on in two separate 

places at the same time. I do not think they are going to go to the 

41 

Ukraine. They might. This is more reflective of the Soviet Union 

than it is I think America. 

All correspondence to and from the relative parties, Kansas Corn 

Growers Association, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All e-mails from 

copying, blind copying, so on and so forth, a blind copying. Sending 

blind copies. If they are blind, how can—no, never mind. 

All internal memoranda and notes concerning atrazine. All studies relating to atrazine, conducted, authorized, sponsored or supervised by the Kansas Corn Growers; all raw data of atrazine studies, all notes, reports, analysis or other documents, any source of 

information, other documents relied upon, any surveys received 

from corn growers and/or farmers. 

Jere, hello, how you doing, e-mails. What are you doing on the 

atrazine thing, well, let me tell you what is happening on my farm. 

Sorry, got to put that in there. 

All reports, articles, other documents written by the Kansas Corn 

Growers, any source information or other documents, all documents 

related to presentation here today, all documents related to persons 

present in any presentation. 

I guess I am going to have to submit something. Any documents 

evidencing monetary contributions or compensation. Oh. Any documents relating to training, how you going to get anything, in contribution, well, never mind. I am not going to get into that. 

Any documents relating to training offered to Kansas Corn Growers Association, all phone logs, notes, other documents reflecting 

phone conversations, all calendar entries, reports. 

This just goes on and on and on even to the point if he talks to 

his secretary that could be deposed. My question is. You have given 

your life to the Kansas Corn Growers and you have got a great 

farming operation. 

If we are going to get into anything under the jurisdiction of 

FIFRA where somebody stands before a Scientific Advisory Panel 

and gives their point of view or this Committee or any other public 

place, how does this interaction and judicial activism affect those 

who may want to serve on farmer or commodity organizations, 

wheat growers, corn growers, cotton growers, sorghum growers, 

livestock association, pork producers? 

It seems to me this has a terrible chilling affect and some of it 

comes back to the fact that the EPA decided to have six SAPs in 

god knows how many days, giving them the opportunity then to 

say, okay, here is a straw man out here, pardon me, a corn man 

out here, a corn husk out here, that they can go after. 

I do not know how anybody wants to serve in a capacity of leadership within any farm organization if that is the case. This is a 

very bad situation. 

Mr. WHITE. Well, Senator, they are certainly getting at our right 

to associate. I think it is a fundamental principle of what trade associations do. You know they are even getting at our right to associate within our office. 

As we discussed earlier, many times things that we put out for 

public consumption gets battered around just as it would in your 

office. Not all the ideas that are floated certainly rise to the top or 

sometimes you write back to your coworker what are you thinking 

but a lot of times today we write. We do not necessarily talk. 

42 

All those discussions are part of the subpoena. The interaction 

with board members. It does. It gets at the very core of what we 

are able to do as we develop our policies, our positions, our 

thoughts, and I think it is intended to do that. I truly do. 

Can I say with certainty that I received these subpoenas because 

I was at the SAP last week? No, I do not know the thought process 

of the trial attorneys. But I can tell you that the Holiday Shores 

Sanitary District has no reason to think that I know anything 

about what goes on when they sell water to people in Holiday 

Shores. And I do not. 

But we are talking literally, I have been following the atrazine 

saga since 1994. Within the State of Kansas, I have been working 

on the atrazine issue since 1989. We are talking tens of thousands 

of documents, thousands of e- mails. We are talking things that are 

stuck away in the attic, in storage sheds, and things like that. 

A tremendous burden, and I know it is of no value. Admittedly, 

the trial attorneys may say, well, we do not know that. But again 

what right do they have to harass me. And the only reason they 

know I exist is because of the activities that you talked about. 

I stuck my head up out of the weeds and welcome to our world. 

I can tell you that you know if it is meant to intimidate, it had the 

wrong impact on me. I originally was not able to attend this hearing because of some conflicts. I did everything I could to work them 

out to be here after getting the subpoenas on Monday night. And 

if they are coming after me, as we might say Kansas occasionally, 

they need to bring a lunch because they are going to be at it a 

while. 

Senator ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I think we have one heck 

of a problem on our hands or a challenge on our hands. This has 

the effect, a chilling effect as it relates to anybody that takes their 

time and effort to serve in leadership in behalf of any farmer organization, any commodity group or for that matter any group, and 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that these three subpoenas 

be made part of the record if that is appropriate. 

Chairman LINCOLN. Without objection. 

[The information can be found on page 82 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I thank you for having the hearing. Jere, I am 

sorry you having to go through this and we will keep meeting and 

see if we can find some answer to this because this is simply not 

right and I appreciate your coming. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. VROOM. Madam Chairman, could I add something? I think 

what Jere is working on with regard to bringing information forward, scientific and benefits information about atrazine, the same 

thing that is going on with regard to a number of other older compounds which are also important, all of which get regular review 

by EPA, and in the case of all of these like atrazine, like 

carbofuran, endosulfan, aldicarb and the list goes on. 

We have seen risk mitigation over the years, certainly the 20 

plus years that I have been with this association and yet farmers 

still depend on these and yet now in the last few months we have 

seen what we feel like are knee jerk and unexpected kind of new 

process or the departure from regular process procedures in threatening or forcing cancellation of some of these products. 

43 

But also there is a chilling effect on our members who are inventing the newer products to go along with the older product. A 

great example is one of our members who has a methyl bromide 

replacement product, methyl iodide. EPA registered it several years 

ago and it is still waiting for regulatory approval in California. 

Extremist activist organizations have challenged that in California and now have petitioned EPA to rethink their registration 

of methyl iodide. So that has to make those member companies of 

ours who are investing $20-, $30 million a month, and usually it 

is upwards of $300 million cost before they ever get a new product 

to market, to wonder is it really worth the price of continuing to 

take the risk to innovate. 

So there is a chilling effect everywhere you look, and it is because we have lost our way with regard to regular order, the rule 

of law, science and transparency which the Administrator has said 

she supports and is committed to, and I believe with your help she 

will return to. 

Chairman LINCOLN. There is no doubt that transparency and you 

know science-based evidence and science-based research is critical 

to what we need to see happen here. I think you are right that we 

just need to make sure we are continuing to move forward and to 

encourage that in a common sense way and to also ask everybody 

to be at the table when things are being decided. 

I think several things have come out of this and I am certainly 

appreciative to this panel and all of our witnesses today. One of the 

most important is that if we do not like importing oil we are really 

not going to like importing our food. 

And we have a lot of really hard working farm families and 

ranchers across the State, across this country that do a great job, 

and I think that you know so many of the other things that we 

have seen, whether it is what we can use, what the tools are that 

our agricultural producers have that allow them to be competitive 

and to continue to do what they do, taking those tools away from 

them not only unfortunately may shift us into requiring our dependence on imported food but it is importing food from countries 

that grow crops and products with the very things that we are outlawing now. 

So I think it is so important for us to work through these issues 

and I will look forward to working with all of you all as well as 

the EPA Administrator and others and certainly my colleagues to 

come up with some of these solutions so we can keep those hardworking farm families doing what we need to do best. 

So thank you all for being with us today. 

The record will remain open for five business days for members 

who could not attend to submit their questions in 

writing and that would mean that the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

46 


66276.001
47 


66276.002
48 


66276.003
49 


66276.004
50 


66276.005
51 


66276.006
52 


66276.007
53 


66276.008
54 


66276.009
55 


66276.010
56 


66276.011
57 


66276.012
58 


66276.013
59 


66276.014
60 


66276.015
61 


66276.016
62 


66276.017
63 


66276.018
64 


66276.019
65 


66276.020
66 


66276.021
67 


66276.022
68 


66276.023
69 


66276.024
70 


66276.025
71 


66276.026
72 


66276.027
73 


66276.028
74 


66276.029
75 


66276.030
76 


66276.031
77 


66276.032
78 


66276.033
79 


66276.034
80 


66276.035
(81) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

82 


66276.036
83 


66276.037
84 


66276.038
85 


66276.039
86 


66276.040
87 


66276.041
88 


66276.042
89 


66276.043
(91) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

92 


66276.044
93 


66276.045
94 


66276.046
95 


66276.047
96 


66276.048
97 


66276.049
98 


66276.050
99 


66276.051
100 


66276.052
101 


66276.053
102 


66276.054
103 


66276.055
104 


66276.056
105 


66276.057
106 


66276.058
107 


66276.059
108 


66276.062
109 


66276.063
110 


66276.064
111 


66276.065
112 


66276.066
113 


66276.067
114 


66276.068
115 


66276.069
116 


66276.070
117 


66276.071
118 


66276.072
119 


66276.073
120 


66276.074
121 


66276.075
122 


66276.076
123 


66276.077
124 


66276.078
125 


66276.079
126 


66276.080
127 


66276.081
128 


66276.082
129 


66276.083
130 


66276.084
131 


66276.085
132 


66276.086
133 


66276.087
134 


66276.088
135 


66276.089
136 


66276.090
137 


66276.091
138 


66276.092
139 


66276.093
140 


66276.094
141 


66276.095
142 


66276.096
143 


66276.097
144 


66276.098
145 


66276.099
146 


66276.100
147 


66276.101
148 


66276.060
149 


66276.061