U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

29–478 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–198 

THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON AMERICAN 

FARMING AND RANCHING COMMUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 7, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 7, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Hansen, Niels, Secretary-Treasurer, Public Lands Council, and member, National Cattlemen’s Association ............................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Duvall, Zippy, President, American Farm Bureau Federation ............................ 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Hill, Howard, Director of Veterinary Services and Multiplication Iowa, and 

Past President, National Pork Producers Council ............................................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Response to an additional question from Senator Booker ............................ 65 

Scuse, Michael, Secretary of Agriculture, State of Delaware .............................. 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 74 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 75 

Teske, Donn, Vice President, National Farmers Union ....................................... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 86 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 87 

(1) 

THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON AMERICAN FARMING AND RANCHING COMMUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Shelby, 

Cardin, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Van 

Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we will hold a hearing on the impact of Federal environmental regulations and policies on American farming and ranching 

communities. 

The discussion here today is not about the value of environmental regulations, but about how some Federal regulations can be 

inflexible, antiquated, duplicative, and ultimately harmful to American agriculture, a critical part of our nation’s economy. 

Members of this Committee should work to ensure environmental laws are strong and effective, without being overly burdensome. This is often a difficult task. 

The United States is blessed with diverse ecosystems that often 

require different kinds of stewardship to remain healthy. In Wyoming, we have an abundance of sagebrush prairie, coniferous forests, a variety of mountain habitats and wetlands. Wyoming ranchers and farmers are familiar with each ecosystem and its needs. 

This is where they work, live, and invest their energies. 

Farmers and ranchers are the original stewards; they understand that landscapes and watersheds need to be healthy to support native plants, wildlife, crops, and livestock. They are living 

proof that interacting with nature can be done in an environmentally sound way, often leaving the resources in better condition 

than they found them. 

Washington policies do not always translate well in rural America. When I am home in Wyoming I often hear how out of touch 

environmental regulations have become. For far too long the people 

2 

who feed, clothe, and house our nation have been burdened by policies that fail to reflect on the ground realities. 

We can look no further than the Obama administration’s failed 

Waters of the United States rule. Under that rule, farmers and 

ranchers across the country were told that irrigation ditches, 

ponds, and puddles were ‘‘navigable waters’’ and could be regulated 

by the Federal Government. 

I am happy to say that, last week, the delay in implementation 

of the WOTUS rule became final, giving the EPA and the Army 

Corps of Engineers time to make sure that any new rule protects 

America’s water resources, while not unnecessarily burdening 

farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and communities across America. 

When writing legislation, Congress must take care to ensure policy actually achieves the desired objective. Agencies must do the 

same when developing regulations. I believe that we should 

prioritize updating and revising policies that, while well intentioned, were not designed to micromanage agriculture production. 

One example is the new animal waste emission reporting requirements. Over the past several months farmers and ranchers 

struggled to comply with ambiguities and an ambiguous agency directive following an April 2017 decision in the D.C. Circuit Court. 

That decision fundamentally changed reporting requirements 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, collectively known as CERCLA and EPCRA. 

The ruling meant up to 100,000 farmers and ranchers, who have 

never been required to report under these laws, were suddenly required to comply. Even though they wanted to comply with the ruling, the process and the implications of compliance were unclear. 

Because both CERCLA and EPCRA were not written with the intent of regulating these farms and ranches, the requirement to report emissions from animal waste came without context and largely 

without any agency guidance. 

Let me now turn to NEPA, the National Environmental Policy 

Act. We cannot discuss environmental regulations and their impact 

on agriculture operations without mentioning NEPA. NEPA is at 

the core of every decision in each land use plan, resource management proposal, trailing and crossing permit, and grazing allotment 

that farmers and ranchers need. 

NEPA is not limited to agriculture. For years we have discussed 

the effect NEPA has had on delaying the construction of roads, 

bridges, parks, reservoirs, and other critical infrastructure. 

While environmental analysis can be important in many cases, 

completing NEPA takes far too long. As NEPA delays stifle improvements around the farm or ranch areas, calves and lambs grow 

and are sold, ecosystems need change, and farmers, ranchers, and 

their families wait for an answer. As we will hear from today’s witnesses, these are families whose lives, livelihoods, hopes, and 

dreams are inseparable from the lands and the waters that they 

work so hard to keep clean. 

These are not the only examples of punishing regulations that 

farmers and ranchers and the communities they live in face. Today 

we will also hear about duplicative permitting requirements of the 

3 

application of pesticides already covered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA; issues of privacy 

and the collection of data on farmers and ranchers; on how the Endangered Species Act has been implemented and the subsequent 

negative impact on farming and ranching operations. 

These and other examples will be discussed so we, as a Committee, can better understand how we can help these hard working 

communities across our country. 

Before we move on to our witnesses today, I would like to turn 

to the Ranking Member, Senator Carper, for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much for 

bringing us all together today. 

And a special thanks to our witnesses. I feel privileged to be able 

to introduce Michael Scuse, our Secretary of Agriculture for a second tour, in a moment. 

But first let me give a brief statement, then I would like to introduce Michael. 

No other sector of our nation’s economy’s success is more closely 

tied with the quality of our environment than is the agriculture 

sector. Farmers are our nation’s original conservationists. They understand better than anyone else the need for clean air, for clean 

water, and high quality soil in order to produce the food that we 

need not just to feed ourselves, but really to feed the world. 

In Delaware over 40 percent of our land is dedicated to farming, 

and our State’s agriculture sector employs some 30,000 Delawareans, while contributing nearly $8 billion a year to our State’s 

economy. I am proud to say that First State farmers are first in 

the nation for the value of product produced per acre, first in the 

number of lima beans harvested, and I think in Sussex County, 

which is the third largest county in America, first in production of 

broilers—chickens—by county. We do all this while practicing exceptional environmental stewardship while our farming community 

is working closely in partnership with USDA, with State agencies, 

and our universities. 

Our nation’s environmental laws have been instrumental in helping us deliver clean air, clean water, and productive lands for our 

farmers and our ranchers. I should add to that list our foresters, 

our fishing communities, because their success is also greatly dependent on a healthy environment and vital ecosystems. 

For example, EPA has found that the 2005 Clean Air Act rules 

that protect our lungs from ground smog also protect our crops and 

animals, to the tune of $13 billion in estimated benefits by 2020. 

The Clean Air Act also protects crops from damaging ultraviolet radiation by protecting the planet’s ozone layer and limiting the use 

of ozone depleting chemicals. In fact, it turns out that those Clean 

Air Act protections will prevent an estimated 7.5 percent drop in 

future crop yields in 2075. 

There are other environmental issues where we need to act and 

do more to help our farmers. For example, climate change is already disrupting the livelihood of farmers and ranchers. The Federal Government’s Third National Climate Assessment found that 

4 

‘‘Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in 

the past 40 years and are projected to increase over the next 25 

years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.’’ 

The Climate Science Special Report released in November 2017 

confirmed these trends. I look forward to hearing the testimony of 

our witnesses on this topic. 

Other environmental programs have created new income opportunities for farmers. The Renewable Fuel Standard has been a 

major economic driver in farm communities across our country. In 

addition, tens of thousands of farmers across our country are enrolled in USDA’s conservation programs that pay farmers for the 

water quality and habitat conservation services they provide and 

protect. 

I acknowledge, though, that sometimes environmental requirements can be complex. The Chairman has referred to this already. 

But those requirements can be confusing to those who farm. One 

such example is the air emissions reporting requirement for farms 

under two laws, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, known as CERCLA, and the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know, known as 

EPCRA. 

In 2008 the Bush administration promulgated a rule that exempted all but the largest farms from reporting under these laws. 

In 2017 the D.C. Circuit Court overturned the 2008 rule, putting 

farmers on notice that they would soon need to begin reporting. 

Unfortunately, EPA’s reporting guidance to farmers for this reporting has been confusing, and it has been unhelpful. 

Along with a number of other colleagues here in this room and 

outside this room, I have been pushing EPA for several months to 

do better. EPA agreed it had more work to do, and at our urging 

agreed to request more time from the court to continue developing 

a workable guidance and if necessary to give Congress the time to 

act on this issue. Thankfully, the court agreed, and last week, as 

we know, gave EPA until May 1st to get this right. 

With the 2008 rule no longer in place, I am committed to working toward a solution that balances the burden of this reporting on 

our farmers with the legitimate needs of public health and emergency response officials, and the right of local community members 

to know about the pollution in their air. This is what the Bush administration sought to do in 2008, and it is how I believe we should 

proceed now. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, just do a quick word of introduction on 

Michael Scuse, who is joining us today. I am tempted just to read 

his bio; it is incredible. I won’t do that, but really an incredible 

record of service and achievement. 

The Scuse family is highly regarded in our State. We have three 

counties. Smyrna is in the middle of our State, just north of Dover. 

The Scuse family has farmed there forever and has enjoyed great 

success and really been a role model for a lot of folks in farming 

and outside of farming. 

I mentioned in my statement that farmers were our first original 

conservationists. The Scuse family is a great example of that. 

5 

In addition to serving through the work that he has done with 

his own family business, he has served as our Secretary of Agriculture not once, for 8 years— almost 8 years—under Governor 

Ruth Ann Minner, but he also served as her chief of staff for a period of time, and in the current administration of Governor John 

Carney he is again our Secretary of Agriculture, and we are delighted that he is. 

In addition to that, he was asked, in the Obama administration, 

to come down here and to serve in Washington in a number of senior leadership positions, including Undersecretary at the Department of Ag, Acting Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Acting Secretary of Agriculture for our country. Just extraordinary, and I am 

just thrilled that he could be here today. He is a good friend, someone that we are just honored to say that he is a Delawarean. 

We are honored that you are here today with us, Michael, and 

I salute you for all that you have done and continue to do. Thank 

you for joining us. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Before we head to the panel, we have a number of introductions 

to be made. Senator Ernst and Senator Moran have introductions. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Today I have the great honor of introducing a fellow Iowan, Dr. 

Howard Hill, a hog farmer from Cambridge, who serves as President of the National Pork Producers Council and is a veterinarian 

with Iowa Select Farms. 

Previously Dr. Hill was Director of Veterinary Services and Multiplication for Murphy Family Farms in Rose Hill, North Carolina, 

and was head of Veterinary Microbiology in the Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. 

Dr. Hill served as President of NPPC for the 2014–2015 term, 

and prior to that was a member of the NPPC Board of Directors, 

serving on a number of committees and co-chairing the Environmental Policy Committee. He also served on the Board of Directors 

of the Iowa Pork Producers, where he was the Chairman of the Research Committee and the Contract Growers Committee. 

Dr. Hill owns a sow farrow to finish farm, which produces breeding stock for DanBred USA. He also partners with his son on the 

family farm, where they have a pure bred Angus herd and 2,500 

acres of row crops. 

Thank you for being here today, Dr. Hill. We look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Thank you to you and the Ranking Member for having our hearing, and it is an honor for me to introduce to the Committee Donn 

Teske, a Kansas farmer from Wheaton, Kansas, in the north-central part of our State. Donn has been actively engaged in the National Farmers Union and the Kansas Farmers Union for a very 

long time. He is a leader in agriculture and rural America, and I 

hold Donn in high regard for his love for and passion for small 

towns across our State. He recognizes fully, as most of us do, that 

6 

if rural America is going to have a future, it is because farmers and 

ranchers are having success. 

I appreciate him, and especially here on the conservation issue. 

He has a great love for the land and understands how important 

clear skies and good soil and clean water are to Kansans across our 

State. 

So, Donn, I welcome you to the Committee, and I thank you for 

your testimony; I look forward to hearing it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

We also have joining the panel Mr. Zippy Duvall, who is the 

President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, but first we 

are going to hear from Mr. Niels Hansen. 

Niels joins us today from Rawlins, Wyoming. He is the immediate past President of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, 

currently serves as the Secretary and Treasurer for the Public 

Lands Council. As a third generation rancher, Niels knows that 

raising cattle, sheep, and horses is full of challenges. Over the 

years Niels has worked with the University of Wyoming and the 

Bureau of Land Management to develop cooperative range land 

monitoring, which has allowed Niels to become intimately familiar 

with both the needs of his livestock and the needs of range land 

ecosystems. 

His successful stewardship is evident in the longevity and success of his family ranch, which has also been recognized for many 

years in Wyoming and nationally. The Bureau of Land Management recognized Niels’s ranch with the BLM Range Land Management Stewardship Award in 2000, and in 2001 the ranch was 

named the Little Snake River Conservation District Cooperator of 

the Year. 

Niels has been recognized repeatedly for his leadership in the industry and in his community. He has served as a member of the 

Rawlins Search and Rescue, and was inducted into the Wyoming 

Agriculture Hall of Fame in 2011. 

Niels, I am pleased to have you with us here today to lend your 

wealth of experience to the Committee. I ask that you please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF NIELS HANSEN, SECRETARY-TREASURER, 

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, members of the Committee. Thank you for having me here 

today to address how the Federal regulations affect my ranch and 

others across the country. 

My name is Niels Hansen. My family has been ranching in our 

area for 120 years. Today, my son is home taking care of the ranch 

so that I can be with you today to discuss these issues. 

As stated, I am the past President of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, past Chairman of the Wyoming State Grazing 

Board, a member of the National Cattlemen’s Association, and I 

currently serve as Secretary-Treasurer for the National Public 

Lands Council. 

7 

Our ranch covers 230,000 acres of ground in central Wyoming; 

consists of private and BLM in the checkerboard land pattern. We 

span over three watersheds. 

Beyond ranching, I spent much of the last 30 years working on 

these issues that we are discussing today in Wyoming, in Washington, DC, and across the West. As recently as last week, at the 

National Cattlemen’s Convention, I taught a class on working with 

Federal agencies and trying to educate people how to get along and 

work toward a goal. 

In our interactions with the Federal agencies, our first priority 

is always to identify common ground and to work together. But we 

are constantly tangled in a web of Federal regulations. I am here 

today to talk about just a few of those regulations that impact my 

ranch and my family. 

As long as it remains on the books, the Obama era WOTUS rule 

continues to be a serious threat to our operation. On our ranch, we 

wrestle with the management of three watersheds. None of them 

drain directly into adjacent Federal waters, but under the ambiguous and overreaching 2015 rule, it is impossible to know whether 

we are exempt or not. As a family rancher, I should not need to 

hire hydrologists, engineers, and attorneys to figure this out. 

I am grateful the Administration has taken steps to roll back 

this rule and replace it with something more workable, but more 

work still needs to be done. The ranching community stands ready 

to help in any way we can. 

Another regulation I shouldn’t be wrestling with in our cow-calf 

operation is the reporting requirements under CERCLA and 

EPCRA. The simple fact is emissions from normal livestock operations should not be covered under this rule. In particular, it is absurd to require such reporting for a 3,000-head operation like mine 

spread across 60 square miles. Such an operation would never require a coordinated emergency response. Congress needs to fix this. 

As we all know, you can’t discuss ranching anywhere in the 

country without taking into account wildlife management. Two 

pieces of legislation that make it very difficult for me are the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Act. However well intended, ESA is 40 years old. It needs to be updated to reflect lessons learned and the issues of today. The path forward must work 

for all, not just environmental litigants that pay their bills with 

proceeds from legal settlements. Our best opportunity to modernize 

ESA is through last year’s bipartisan Western Governors’ recommendations to this Committee. 

But only addressing ESA does not solve the whole problem. The 

Migratory Bird Act is working so well that populations of ravens 

are exploding on my ranch and around the West. This Act allows 

for proportionate response to growing populations that threaten 

both the sage grouse and our young livestock, but Federal agencies 

are slow to grant us necessary perdition authority and expanded 

baiting flexibility. For me, it is the ravens. In other parts of the 

country the cormorants, black vultures, and other predators are the 

issue. 

In conclusion, please recognize that the ranchers are your eyes 

and ears on the land. We are your best tool to achieve any real conservation objectives on the ground. Turn us loose. No one is more 

8 

dedicated to the health of the land than those of us who are dependent on it. Let the ranchers do what we do best. Everyone will 

benefit—the species, the ecosystem, and the rural communities. 

Thank you again for hearing my testimony. I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:] 

9 


29478.001
10 


29478.002
11 


29478.003
12 


29478.004
13 


29478.005
14 


29478.006
15 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you so much for traveling here 

from Wyoming, and thanks for that excellent testimony. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Duvall. 

STATEMENT OF ZIPPY DUVALL, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. DUVALL. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come talk to you about real world impact on overregulation of farmers and ranchers. 

My name is Zippy Duvall, and I am a beef and poultry farmer 

in Georgia. My son is at home right now; he is fourth generation, 

and also providing large animal veterinary medicine in our community. 

I was elected President of the American Farm Bureau 2 years 

ago, and I visited farms in all 50 States since I have become President, and I talked to them about the things that keep them awake 

at night. The two issues that have come up at almost every farm 

that I have visited were the lack of adequate legal supply of labor 

and the burden of overregulation on their farms. 

Regulatory process today is a product of decades of administrative and judicial decisions without much effort to integrate these 

decisions into a system that makes sense to all of us. Farmers and 

ranchers have shared their stories about the impact of regulations 

on their lives and their farms as I visit them. 

In West Virginia, a poultry farmer who operates one of the cleanest farms that we have ever seen is spending tens of thousands of 

dollars on legal bills to defend their farm in court against EPA’s 

misinterpretation of the Clean Water Act. 

Federal officers, without any authority from Congress and without public notice, have used what amounts to extortion against 

ranchers in Utah to force them to hand over their private water 

rights as a condition of getting Federal grazing permits. 

The Endangered Species Act has not been successful in recovering listed species; only 50 species have been recovered out of 

1,661 species listed in the past 45 years. That is a 3 percent success rate. Eleven species have gone extinct while under this Federal protection. Meanwhile, the ESA has made it harder for farmers and ranchers to use their land and protect their livestock. 

And last, but not least, the EPA, under provisions of the previous 

Administration, finalized the Waters of the U.S. rule that epitomizes the failure of our current regulatory system. The law that 

governs this process, the Administrative Procedure Act, is more 

than 70 years old and is way overdue for reform, especially when 

you consider how social media can shape public input. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have met farmers and ranchers who are 

not sure that they want to encourage their children to remain on 

the farm. And I remind you the average age of the American farmer is 58 years old. A generation of farmers and ranchers will be 

hanging up their hats within a few years, and we need to ask ourselves who is going to be willing to step up and take the place to 

grow the food for our tables in America and around the world. 

16 

As committed as young people are, like my son, Zeb, who are 

farming and ranching, they cannot continue if the over-regulatory 

burdens continue to grow. Farm income is down about 50 percent 

compared to 5 years ago, but I assure you the regulatory costs have 

not gone down any. These facts would give pause to even the most 

dedicated farmer and rancher around this country. 

I would like to close with a quote from a statesman from my 

home State, President Jimmy Carter. He signed an executive order 

in March 1978 that states, ‘‘Regulations should not impose unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on public and private organizations, or on State and local governments. Regulations 

should be developed through a process which ensures that compliance costs, paperwork, and other burdens on the public are minimized.’’ 

And then there is President Trump’s executive order of a year 

ago that requires agencies to repeal two rules for every one rule 

that they issue. And in signing that executive order, the President 

said, ‘‘Every regulation should have to pass a simple test: Does this 

make life better or safer for American workers and consumers?’’ 

This is not a partisan issue. This is about allowing our farmers 

and businesses to be productive. It is about a goal that I believe 

we all share, a regulatory process that is credible, one that we can 

get behind, instead of having to fight against. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to answer any questions that you and your colleagues have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duvall follows:] 

17 


29478.007
18 


29478.008
19 


29478.009
20 


29478.010
21 


29478.011
22 


29478.012
23 


29478.013
24 


29478.014
25 


29478.015
26 


29478.016
27 


29478.017
28 


29478.018
29 


29478.019
30 


29478.020
31 


29478.021
32 


29478.022
33 


29478.023
34 


29478.024
35 


29478.025
36 


29478.026
37 


29478.027
38 


29478.028
39 


29478.029
40 


29478.030
41 


29478.031
42 


29478.032
43 


29478.033
44 


29478.034
45 


29478.035
46 


29478.036
47 


29478.037
48 


29478.038
49 


29478.039
50 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Duvall, for your 

testimony. 

Dr. Hill. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD HILL, DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY 

SERVICES AND MULTIPLICATION IOWA, AND PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL 

Mr. HILL. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. I would also like to give 

a special thanks to my home State Senator, Joni Ernst, who has 

done a tremendous amount of work for Iowa farmers. 

My name is Dr. Howard Hill. I am a veterinarian and pork producer from Cambridge, Iowa, and past President of the National 

Pork Producers Council, on whose behalf I am testifying today. 

Pork producers are deeply committed to responsibly managing 

their animals and the manure they produce to protect water and 

air quality, and to maximize the manure’s benefit and value as a 

vital source of nutrients for crops we grow. NPPC and pork producers have a long and proud history of working cooperatively with 

environmental regulators at the State and Federal levels, and are 

supportive of Federal environmental policies and programs if they 

are grounded in three primary principles: one, the environmental 

performance expectations for producers have a high probability of 

resulting in meaningful environmental improvements; two, the 

measures involved are practical and affordable; and three, producers are given a realistic amount of time to adopt the measures 

and associated systems to their operations so they can continue to 

be profitable and successful. 

NPPC has worked with EPA on numerous occasions to ensure 

the Agency’s rules meet those principles and that they ultimately 

protect the environment. One of the best examples of our cooperative effort was the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study of the 

emissions of swine operations. Pork producers used about $6 million of their own funds to support that EPA-supervised third-party 

study and approximately 5,000 swine facilities enrolled with EPA 

in air consent agreements that made the work possible. 

But when necessary, NPPC will fight bad environmental policies 

and programs. Pork producers do not oppose environmental regulations, but they will oppose rules that are not sound, effective, and 

practical. An example of the latter is the requirement to report air 

emission releases under CERCLA and EPCRA. Almost all livestock 

farmers are now required to report ammonia emissions that result 

from natural breakdown of animal waste. 

When EPA first issued the rules on those reports in 2008, all the 

livestock farmers were exempt from CERCLA reporting, and all but 

the largest operations were exempt from EPCRA because producers 

and EPA never believed that routine agriculture emissions from 

manure constituted the type of emergency or crisis that CERCLA 

or EPCRA were intended to address. Animal agriculture also never 

understood how the reporting of farm emissions to the U.S. Coast 

Guard under CERCLA would have supported the legitimate emergency response purpose of those regulations. 

The reports that were required under EPCRA had to be made to 

State and local emergency response authorities in January 2009. 

51 

At the time, EPA completely dropped the ball. The Agency failed 

to provide any guidance to farmers on how to report emissions, and 

it failed to provide guidance to the State and local agencies that 

were going to receive those reports, and as a result, chaos ensued. 

Almost all producers trying to report emissions had difficulty 

reaching State and local emergency response authorities either because phone lines were overwhelmed or fax machines just ran out 

of paper. Those who did manage to get through and submit reports 

were met with disbelief and confusion. Statements such as ‘‘Why 

are you submitting this to us?’’ and ‘‘What are we supposed to do 

with this information?’’ were common. In Illinois, for example, 

farmers were told there was no rule requiring reporting and that 

this was merely an Internet hoax. In the southeast, EPA told local 

authorities that their reports were supposed to be submitted to 

EPA’s Water Office. 

In the wake of that chaos, NPPC and other agriculture groups, 

in early 2009, filed lawsuits challenging EPA’s 2008 rule. Last 

April the D.C. Circuit finally ruled in this case, throwing out the 

agricultural exemption from the two reporting rules and forcing 

tens of thousands of livestock farmers to figure out how to estimate 

and report their emissions. The latest industry estimate of the 

number of animal producers now subject to reporting requirements 

is over 200,000. 

While the pork industry is certainly prepared to comply with 

CERCLA and EPCRA once the appeals court mandates take effect, 

it should be noted that EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and State and 

local emergency response authorities have all gone on record saying 

not only is there no need for this information, but that its volume 

will create a major management challenge for them and that it will 

interfere with their other legitimate emergency functions. It is for 

this reason that NPPC is supporting a legislative fix to address the 

requirements in CERCLA, and if possible, EPCRA, and we urge 

members of this Committee to do likewise. 

To conclude, pork producers are proud of their environmental efforts over the past 50 years, a period that has seen the amount of 

pork produced double, while the use of feed, water, and land has 

been reduced significantly, and our carbon footprint has decreased 

by 35 percent. NPPC and the U.S. pork industry stand ready to 

work with Congress, Federal and State agencies, and anyone who 

is willing to work with us to help producers improve our environmental stewardship efforts and to address new challenges. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:] 

52 


29478.040
53 


29478.041
54 


29478.042
55 


29478.043
56 


29478.044
57 


29478.045
58 


29478.046
59 


29478.047
60 


29478.048
61 


29478.049
62 


29478.050
63 


29478.051
64 


29478.052
65 


29478.053
66 


29478.054
67 


29478.055
68 


29478.056
69 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Dr. Hill. 

Secretary Scuse. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCUSE, 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF DELAWARE 

Mr. SCUSE. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking 

Member Carper, members of the Committee. I appreciate the invitation to speak to you today about the impacts of Federal regulations and policies on American farming and ranching communities. 

Delaware has benefited from many of the environmental policies 

and regulations that have come from our Federal partners. We are 

able to see examples on a daily basis that are benefiting not only 

our family farms, but also the State and our efforts to improve the 

overall environment. 

Middletown, Delaware, once a large farming community, continues to have good neighborly relations today. While our understanding of agriculture might not be the same as the original farm 

community, Middletown citizens have embraced agriculture 

through education and advocacy from the local agriscience programs, cooperative extension, as well as farm groups. 

As you can imagine, the influx of additional residents has increased the usage of water resources, while farmers still need to irrigate their crops. Through the town’s wastewater treatment plant, 

wastewater is recycled and used to spray irrigation on those neighboring farms, as part of the Chesapeake Watershed, making sure 

runoff does not occur; it is extremely important. 

Delaware farmers are able to utilize a variety of conservation 

practices supported by research. The moneys that are provided for 

conservation districts and supplemented by USDA NRCS have 

been extremely important in enhancing and supporting the usage 

of cover crops. These crops not only can reduce the amount of soil 

loss from wind and water erosion, but can also scavenge residual 

nutrients and release them during the next growing season. 

EPA has helped generate funds to support one of the best nutrient management programs in the country, thanks to now Senator 

Carper, then-Governor Carper. With a talented staff dedicated to 

helping farmers and protecting the environment, we have been able 

to update our compliance standards, meeting the regulations set 

forth by EPA. We have been able to fund collaborations with thirdparty specialists, like Tetra Tech, to develop modeling and enhanced data to support our new compliance standards. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard has increased demand for corn. In 

2000 American farmers produced 10 billion bushels of corn. By 

2016 farmers were producing 14.6 billion bushels of corn to meet 

the demand. Many people look at the Renewable Fuel Standard 

creating a demand for corn dedicated to ethanol that improves our 

air quality and lessens our demand on non-renewable resources, 

but it also created additional feed markets. 

Poultry litter relocation programs have spawned a growing industry between poultry farms without acreage to utilize those in 

need of fertility. It has offered an alternative option to farmers who 

have phosphorous overload and cannot apply poultry litter to their 

fields. The program has also created compost products and pilot energy generation projects. 

70 

In Delaware, we have noted climate changes, including patterns 

of increased temperate with risk of drought and extreme rainfall 

events. In addition to the obvious effects of increasingly frequent 

drought conditions, climate change is also predicted to result in 

higher frequency and intense rainstorms. Increasing intervals of intense storms presents a risk for agriculture BMP practices that are 

designed for trapping and treating capacity for storm water or combined water flows from agricultural areas. These intense rainfall 

events will impact crops as the timing of these intense rainfalls 

could result in crop failures, such as when the crop has not yet 

emerged in the early development, and thus much more susceptible 

to flooding. 

In some cases, rainfall can also destroy older crops, particularly 

fruits and vegetables, like watermelons and cantaloupes, that have 

substantial input cost. Likewise, warmer winter temperatures can 

lead to fruit trees setting earlier blossoms, which increases the 

chance of frost-freeze damage, as was witnessed in the Mid-Atlantic in the spring of 2016. 

Last, as the climate warms/changes, there is the chance that certain agricultural and forest pests may expand their ranges. For instance, some pest ranges may have been limited by cold temperatures. But as that maximum low temperature for an area rises, 

then that pest now is able to expand its range and survive where 

it previously could not. 

The Delaware Agriculture Department is partnering with USDA 

NRCS on agriculture conservation through programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, that help with cover crops 

and practices that improve our environment and the Agriculture 

Conservation Easement Program, or Ag Land Easements, that benefit Delaware’s Farmland Preservation program. But there is a 

need for streamlining efforts. The ACEP-ALE was instituted, replacing an older program, and it took us 3 years of negotiation 

until terms were agreed upon. In those 3 years Delaware lost its 

funding. 

The uncertainty and continuation of deadline extension surrounding CERCLA has caused confusion for producers and States, 

and there is a need for a legislative fix. We cannot keep putting 

farmers on notice, wondering when they will be hit with legal liability for untimely or inaccurate reporting. 

Farmers and ranchers value and understand the need to protect 

waters of the U.S. The Department of Agriculture and the States 

are willing to put the effort to assist farmers, but we would appreciate a common sense approach to address the issues, as well as 

timely outreach and education materials to WOTUS. We need a 

clear definition that is objective. 

Finally, an additional option to improving the environmental conditions would be to remove environmentally sensitive tillage acreage from consideration, changing the CRP program acreage from 

24 million to 30 million acres. 

Ladies and gentlemen, our farmers and ranchers are in fact the 

first true environmentalists, and I want to thank you for the opportunity for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scuse follows:] 

71 


29478.057
72 


29478.058
73 


29478.059
74 


29478.060
75 


29478.061
76 


29478.062
77 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Teske. 

STATEMENT OF DONN TESKE, VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION 

Mr. TESKE. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, for this opportunity to visit today. 

And especially thank you, Senator Moran, for that more than 

gracious introduction. I have had the honor of considering the Senator a friend for many, many years, and the bad thing about that 

is he learns all the dirt on me, so this makes me a little nervous. 

My wife, Cathy, and I farm a farm operation in Wheaton, Kansas, in Pottawatomie, on the eastern edge of the Flint Hills. It is 

ranching and cropping. We farm it along with our children and 

grandchildren, and we got a slug of grandchildren. Grandchildren 

are fun. I am the fifth generation on the farm. God willing, our 

children will be the sixth and grandchildren seventh, and my goal 

here today is to work together to try and figure out how to give 

them a world they can prosper and thrive in. 

I currently serve as Vice President of the National Farmers 

Union. I am not quite sure how that ever worked out, but when 

I was contacted to visit with you today, my initial thoughts were 

to decline the invitation; I thought it would be too controversial 

and didn’t think I was any expert to talk about it. Upon further 

contemplation, I kind of suspected that most of the testimony 

would be pretty aggressively antagonistic, and I see that was right. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TESKE. And I thought maybe my experiences with the EPA 

and some of my thoughts could bring some perspective to it all. So, 

this is a good discussion to have. 

Most of us in this room are of the age to remember when the rivers were burning in our cities. We fixed them. It didn’t break us. 

Our goal through this is to create a world for our grandchildren 

that they can thrive and prosper in, and it is our responsibility. 

This isn’t something to push off on our children. And it is too late 

for our ancestors. 

So, somehow, we have to figure out how to work together to protect our environment and to allow our farmers to farm profitably. 

And we can do that. But throwing the baby out with the bath 

water by eliminating all regulations is just irresponsible. So, we 

need to work together and think how to do this. 

I already have Rob’s ulcer acting up. I am rambling away from 

the script, but he will have to put up with that. 

My next thing I wanted to talk about was WOTUS. When 

WOTUS was introduced, it created a vicious backlash, and probably rightly so. It wasn’t prepared right; it wasn’t introduced right. 

Administrator Jackson appointed me to a Farmer Rancher Advisory Committee to the EPA, and then later on, Administrator 

McCarthy reappointed me to that, and it is called—and I have to 

read it off. I have a button, and I can’t even remember how to say 

it. 

It is the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory 

Committee. So, anyhow, that is actually a pretty good deal. I consider it a conduit between rural America and the wonks in the 

78 

EPA, and that is a good thing. We were never brought into this discussion as WOTUS was developed or introduced, and I wonder how 

a farmer relationship in there might have changed that and how 

it might have been perceived. 

Another grumbling point along that is the fact that in over a 

year, we have not had a phone call or an e-mail, so it shouldn’t 

really matter what Administration is in charge. I think the communication between rural America and EPA would be a good thing. 

Why has that ceased to happen? 

I need to hurry up, or I won’t cover the top parts. 

In the 1990s I worked for the Kansas Rural Center’s Clean 

Water Farms Project. This is a win-win thing. This was EPA 319 

Funds, and I worked with farmers across the State of Kansas improving their water quality. They get a stipend grant to help them 

toward that. We hosted tours on it to show their neighbors what 

they were doing. It was all just great. And this is an example of 

how good things can happen as you do this. 

Another great thing was Farmer’s Union’s Carbon Credit Program. We were the nation’s leader in carbon sequestration; it was 

modeled after the successful project of the Iowa Farm Bureau. We 

had over 5 million acres enrolled in carbon sequestration practices, 

and they got paid a stipend for that. These are good things. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard. I have 7 seconds to talk about it. 

Keep it; it is a good deal. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TESKE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teske follows:] 

79 


29478.063
80 


29478.064
81 


29478.065
82 


29478.066
83 


29478.067
84 


29478.068
85 


29478.069
86 


29478.070
87 


29478.071
88 


29478.072
89 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Thank you, Senator Moran, for taking a picture of him as he just 

concludes that testimony. He can keep talking if you need to shoot 

him. Take three or four. 

Senator MORAN. The Chairman never gives anyone more time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me get started. 

Mr. Secretary, I noted that you gave positive remarks about the 

Renewable Fuel Standard, the RFS, in your testimony. I would just 

note that just last week your boss, the Governor of Delaware, petitioned the EPA to reduce the burdens of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard on refineries in Delaware and across the country. Your 

Governor actually stated that the RFS ‘‘will undoubtedly severely 

harm the State of Delaware, the entire Middle Atlantic Region, and 

the national economy.’’ 

And I ask unanimous consent to enter that Governor’s petition, 

from the Governor of Delaware, in the record. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Hansen, like many producers in the 

West, you have a great deal of experience in dealing with Federal 

agencies that administer grazing permits. You have also worked for 

decades with the agencies, the University of Wyoming, State experts to develop and to maintain coordinated ecosystem monitoring. 

You have seen the NEPA process in action countless times. 

Can you describe for me the differences that you have seen before Federal NEPA processing and the State process for things like 

range management improvements, economic, environmental, in 

terms of value of public lands? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we were working 

with the State of Wyoming, probably the biggest issue that we deal 

with is water development, and we are generally looking at about 

a 6 month process to turn the permits around with the State of 

Wyoming. Depending on which watershed I am in, working with 

the BLM, I am guaranteed at least a year, probably 2, occasionally 

more. The paperwork and time involved is just ridiculous and very 

burdensome. 

Senator BARRASSO. In your discussion with fellow ranchers in 

Wyoming, are you more or less confident in the economic direction 

of ranching and farming under this Administration versus dealing 

with the previous Administration? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, very much so. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. And what do you think has changed to 

make things better for ranching and farming in Wyoming and in 

other States? 

Mr. HANSEN. Definitely have a can-do attitude in the agencies. 

There is a desire to work with the people on the land again, back 

to what we had prior to the last Administration. We had people in 

the agencies that were reaching out and identifying issues that we 

could get together on. Prior to that it was a very negative environment, and the morale in the agencies was horrible; we were losing 

good people right and left. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think at the end of the answer to your previous question you talked about how much time it takes to do some 

90 

of this Federal paperwork. You know, in 2008, when the EPA provided an exemption to small farms and ranches from reporting animal waste emissions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, CERCLA, and EPCRA, the 

Agency determined that limiting the scope of reporting under those 

two laws would reduce the time burden on farms and ranches required to report. This was the estimation then of the EPA in 2008: 

1,290,000 hours over a 10 year period. 

Now, the D.C. Circuit Court overturned that exemption, as you 

know, in April 2017, forcing farmers and ranchers to report all of 

these things. 

So, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hill, and Duvall, the producers that you 

represent, do they have the ability to spend this kind of time trying 

to comply with these laws? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the major problem, no, we don’t 

have the time. But we don’t have the tools. There is no way to do 

it on a range livestock operation. It is impossible. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Duvall. 

Mr. DUVALL. Yes, sir. You know, when we start thinking about 

reporting—and I expected this question would probably come up 

because it is a big issue across farmland—there is an individual 

farm concern that we have, but I would like for the Committee to 

think about two other concerns, one being public safety concerns. 

You know, if we asked 200,000 farmers to report to the National 

Response Center, which they have to respond to, it would overwhelm them and draw resources away from actual emergencies. 

The second issue I would like for you to think about is a national 

security issue, because as our farmers start reporting their animals 

and what is being emitted there, then we are going to create a 

roadmap that anybody can find any farm anywhere where our food 

system is produced, and those people that lurk around our world 

trying to do harm to our country and to our people will have access 

to our food supply, and that is a very dangerous area to go into. 

And then I will talk about the individual farmer. The individual 

farmer will have to give up his personal information, where he 

lives, and that exposes him to being harassed by activists all 

around. And don’t think that is not happening, because it does happen. 

Senator BARRASSO. Dr. Hill, anything you would like to add to 

this? 

Mr. HILL. Yes. As my friend from Wyoming has said, they don’t 

have the tools to do that, and the NAEMS Study was designed to 

help EPA develop those factors, which that program was done back 

in the early 2000s and still hasn’t been completed. We would at 

least like to see those factors developed so that producers do have 

some way of estimating, and it would only be estimates of what 

their emissions are in case they do have to report it. 

The other thing is we don’t consider farming and the emissions 

from a farm as an emergency; that is an everyday process. And we 

ask ourselves who wants this information, and in some cases it is 

the advocates that don’t want livestock production, and they can 

misuse that information. In the case of Prestige Farms, who was 

trying to build a packing plant in Mason City, Iowa, they had reported back in earlier their emissions and 45 farms, and the activVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Apr 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\29478.TXT SONYA
91 

ists brought that information and made the people in the community believe that those 45 reports were violations and got the people so aroused that they eventually voted down allowing that packing plant to occur. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I was asked by Senator Booker to yield to him. 

I am happy to do that. 

Before I do that, I would just ask unanimous consent to submit 

for the record a document that demonstrates the robust benefit, as 

pointed out by Secretary Scuse, of the Renewable Fuel Standard in 

Delaware and also in other parts of our country. 

The issue that is before us here is East Coast refineries and how 

they are affected by the volatility, the lack of clarity—opaqueness— 

if you will, of RINs, and that is the issue that our Governor is raising. EPA could help us resolve this, and we have asked them to 

help us do that, to play a constructive role, and my hope is that 

they will. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

92 


29478.073
93 


29478.074
94 


29478.075
95 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Chairman Barrasso, and 

thank you for your generosity, Senator Carper. 

In 2016 residents from Duplin County, North Carolina, came to 

Washington, asking for help. Now, there are about 60,000 people 

that actually live in this county in North Carolina, but there are 

more than 2 million pigs being raised there to produce pork. And 

the waste from 2 million pigs, as you probably know, Mr. Hill, is 

equivalent to the waste of about 20 million people that would 

produce. And the primary way pig waste is being disposed of in 

Duplin County is by piping it into huge, open air manure lagoons 

and spraying the waste out onto open fields. 

These residents came to Washington complaining about suffering 

from very serious respiratory problems like asthma, higher rates of 

asthma, higher rates of eye irritation, depression, and numerous 

other health problems caused by living near these lagoons and the 

spray fields. 

I was so astonished by this; we don’t really have these in New 

Jersey, that I actually went down to Duplin County to see, firsthand, what was going on. I saw the pig waste being sprayed; I 

watched it with my own eyes. I saw how it was misting off of the 

spray fields into the local community, carrying it onto adjacent 

properties, and the wretched smell, everywhere we went, around 

there in people’s communities and their homes is something I won’t 

forget. 

I met with local residents in a large group and heard their stories, painful stories about how the drinking water in their wells 

has been poisoned by runoff from the CAFOs and how they felt like 

prisoners in their own homes; how they couldn’t run their air conditioners, couldn’t open their windows. 

So, while I agree that we need to make sure our farmers do not 

have unnecessary Government regulations and red tape, I also 

know that something has to be done about these horrible conditions 

I saw that nobody would want their families to live in that is 

harming farmers and the communities they live in. And I really 

want to be clear here, because I do not think it should be contract 

farmers, who, too, are living in challenging conditions, often making very low wages at really rough margins. I don’t think these 

folks, these good, hardworking Americans, some of the most hardworking people I have met, they should not have to solve this problem. 

It is the big, huge integrators who make billions of dollars in 

profits. One of the biggest companies down there is a Chinese 

owned company that in many ways, with the pork that is being 

shipped to their country, they are outsourcing these problems to us, 

while taking the benefit of our pork. 

So, Mr. Hill, my time is short, but this was one of the more painful things I have seen as an American. And it is a long answer to 

the question, I am sure, so just to respect my time, my limited 

time, could you please provide to me a written response for the 

record about what steps your industry is taking to reduce the 

harmful impact of the kind of CAFOs that I saw and they are having on real American people? Could you provide that answer for me 

in writing, sir? 

96 

Mr. HILL. Possibly, we could do that. You know, we have the 

largest population of swine in Iowa, and we have used new technology to apply manure. 

Senator BOOKER. And sir, just for my own time—I apologize, I 

don’t mean to interrupt you, but I have other questions. Could you 

just respond in writing? What I saw there, no human being should 

have to live in those conditions. The property values around those 

CAFOs have gone way down. People have been on that soil since 

the 1800s. Please just respond to me in writing, because I have 

some other questions I would like to ask you, Mr. Hill. 

Mr. Hill, some of these family farmers are right behind you, incredible Americans who I have come to just have a reverence for 

and respect. They are in the hearing room today, including some 

hog farmers amongst them. They have expressed serious concerns 

to me about a different problem, the Pork Checkoff Program, which 

they are required to pay into, but too often feel doesn’t work to 

their interests. 

As you know, last week a Federal court found that payments of 

millions of dollars of checkoff funds from the Pork Board to your 

organization, the Pork Producers Council, were improper, and they 

said they must stop. 

Senator Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, and I have introduced a bipartisan bill that would make reforms to the Checkoff 

Program. So, do you agree that it would be beneficial to make those 

programs more transparent so that family farmers like the folks 

behind you, who are doing so much of the real work in America, 

can quickly see the budgets and expenditures that are approved by 

the USDA? 

And do you agree that it is good to have periodic independent audits of those checkoff programs so there is a fundamental fairness 

for, again, these small family farmers who are struggling so much? 

And do you agree that checkoff funds should only be used in ways 

that benefit all farmers paying into them, especially and including 

small family farmers that are here today? 

Mr. HILL. And they are. They are being used to the benefit of everybody. We export, now, 26 percent of all of our pork. That increases the value of every pig about $50. In 1993 we were a net 

importer of pork. So those funds are used for a lot of different 

things, but part of it is used for developing customers outside of the 

United States, which our industry depends on, which helps every 

producer that is raising pigs. 

Senator BOOKER. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but a 

judge has disagreed with the gentleman’s answer, and you can see 

from the heads shaking back and forth no, there are a whole bunch 

of local farmers around this country who are not getting the benefit 

and feel really mistreated by this program. I think it is something 

that we and Senator Lee and I are trying to lead this, that we 

should reform and change. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, in my work on this Committee, and having chaired 

the Committee for a number of years, it is not difficult to understand and come to the conclusion that a lot of these costly and outVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Apr 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\29478.TXT SONYA
97 

rageous rules are about one thing and one thing only, and that is 

control, and primarily Federal control. 

I have looked at some of the regulations that this Administration 

has done away with, and I tie that directly to the success, economic 

success, the GDP that is coming in and jumping up from 1.5 percent a year to over 3 percent a year, and good things are happening. 

One of the regulations that I was trying to do away with, and 

this was a year ago, it was the first one that this President was 

successful in doing away with with the congressional review process, was a rule that was put in by the previous Administration that 

said that if you are a domestic oil or gas company and you are competing with China or someone else, you have to give them all of the 

playbook that you are using, actually putting them at a disadvantage over our opposition overseas. 

Now, it was easy to draw up a CRA and pass it. It did pass; we 

had a signing ceremony. But you know, the fact that we have all 

these regulations out there is really pretty outrageous. 

Mr. Duvall, you mentioned in your opening statement—you 

talked about the WOTUS bill. Now, I know that when I went 

around my State of Oklahoma before, you took a position, and most 

of the other organizations took the same position that are representing farmers, that in my area of Oklahoma, in western Oklahoma, it is very arid, and those people out there, of all the regulations that were put in by the previous Administration, that was the 

No. 1 regulation, and it ended up being the No. 1 regulation also 

from the American Farm Bureau and other organizations. 

So, I would just ask you if there is anything that you didn’t say 

about that particular regulation that would either be costly, how it 

would be costly or inconvenient, and have a negative effect. 

Mr. DUVALL. Yes, sir. If you start looking at some of the conservation practices that we put on the ground to protect our soil 

and water on our farms, and you start transitioning land from one 

use to another, not commercial to agriculture, but one agricultural 

practice to another, there are unbelievable permitting procedures 

that certain areas of the country or the country has to go through 

to be able to do that. 

Senator INHOFE. Are you familiar with the panhandle of Oklahoma? 

Mr. DUVALL. Not really. I am coming to the panhandle of Oklahoma, though. 

Senator INHOFE. Their concern was, after a rain, that could, all 

of a sudden, be considered to be a wetland. 

Mr. DUVALL. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. And all of a sudden, you lose the State jurisdiction, and the Federal jurisdiction takes over. Do you see that consistently around the country? 

Mr. DUVALL. I see it consistently, and also I see a variance of determination between agencies of what really is a wetland, what is 

not. 

Senator INHOFE. That is exactly right. 

Mr. DUVALL. And it is unclear to farmers how they can perceive 

what their land really is. 

98 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that very much because that certainly is true. 

Mr. Hansen, I want to do this real quickly here because you 

probably are familiar with what we try to do with the lesser prairie-chicken and the ESA. We had seven States—I am sorry, five 

States, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado, that 

got together and they determined what they could do and what 

kind of reform that they could have, and everyone agreed it was 

near perfect; it was everyone deciding at home what the solution 

was. 

Now, you sometimes wonder if we go through all that trouble 

through the private sector, the landowners, and the landowners we 

know are the ones who are most concerned about the endangered 

species, about their own farms and taking care of environmental 

problems, why it is that you look at others doing that and Government just doesn’t seem to put much weight behind that? I am talking about local suggestions, local programs that are working. Ever 

thought about that, Mr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. All the time, Senator. It is very frustrating to work 

on trying to find a solution to an issue that is identified on the land 

and then have the rug pulled out from under you. In the situation 

you address, the Fish and Wildlife Service was privy to all the conversations, all the negotiations, the plan that was built. They knew 

what was coming; they agreed to it and then pulled the rug out 

from under those operators. 

Senator INHOFE. That is exactly what happened. And by the way, 

Fish and Wildlife did agree. They also agree that the best stewards 

of the land are the landowners themselves, so they need to be listened to also. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am happy to yield to Senator Merkley, and I 

will have a chance to ask some questions later on. 

Jeff, we are happy you are here. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you very much, Senator. 

I appreciate you all bringing your experiences here to Capitol 

Hill. One of the things that is important to my farmers back in Oregon is the Agricultural Research Service. The Administration had 

proposed a significant cut, $360 million cut, to ARS and closing 17 

ARS laboratories across the country. And on a bipartisan basis, we 

worked to keep that program, recognizing its impact on the yield 

of our crops, new diseases, and the importance of exploring the 

qualities of different plants that might work under different conditions. 

So, I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Duvall, with your role, do you 

support the Agricultural Research Service? Do you feel it is important to American agriculture? 

Mr. DUVALL. By all means, Senator. It is so important for our 

country to invest in research and development in agricultural business. And if you look around the world, we are being outspent in 

research and development dollars, and that really is alarming to us 

and very concerning to us, that other parts of the world are having 

99 

the opportunity to catch up and go ahead in some areas. So, research and development is a very key thing that we need to do to 

help our farmers stay on the cutting edge and being competitive in 

the world. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I am not sure what the next Trump 

budget will look like; we will have it soon, but if it proposes cuts 

again, I hope we will have your support, continuing to preserve 

those programs. 

A second piece that is important to a number of my farmers and 

ranchers are the conservation programs, conservation stewardship 

program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQUIP. 

This weekend I was out visiting 16 little towns in northeast Oregon. In one of the towns I met with a rancher who is also a local 

county commissioner, and he said his ranching operation would 

have gone down if it wasn’t for the conservation program that 

helped provide support and resources to make the balance, if you 

will, the books balance. And I hadn’t heard it put quite in those 

terms, that it made the difference between making it or not making 

it, but in general, is the Farm Bureau supportive of these conservation programs? 

Mr. DUVALL. Yes, sir. You have also hit on another topic that is 

very important to us. You know, if we are going to be required by 

regulation to do certain things, and of course, as farmers, we want 

to be able to take care of our land and our water, so to have a partnership through those programs with the general public and the 

Government, a partnership, and I will emphasize that, to help us 

do the right thing, help us do the right thing, because we are making huge investments ourselves in those same projects. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, these are voluntary programs that I 

think is pretty much a win-win for everyone. 

Mr. DUVALL. It is voluntary, and it is cost sharing. 

Senator MERKLEY. By the way, he also talked to me about his 

concern on the sage grouse, because we have had a voluntary program where ranchers can essentially adopt a certain number of 

measures, and then they are protected from any rules that the Endangered Species Act might invoke in the future by having been up 

front and helping, and we had hundreds of ranchers sign up for 

this in Oregon. 

I am not really asking a question about it, I am just noting that 

they are very concerned about the partnership that had been put 

together to try to avoid a listing might fall apart under some of the 

pressures from the current Administration. 

I also wanted to ask about the agricultural work force. Many of 

us here, from our orchardists, from our wine makers, from our 

growers in almost every field, the importance of farm workers to 

make that economy function and that a whole lot of traditional 

workers that have been there year after year are not showing up 

under the current prevailing commentary and attitude toward the 

role of farm workers. 

Does the Farm Bureau support working to essentially embrace 

the role of our farm workers as part of our agricultural economy? 

Mr. DUVALL. Our existing farm workers that are here in the 

country are skilled workers, and our business requires skilled 

workers, and it is vitally important. It is the biggest limiting factor 

100 

to farms to be able to be productive, add to the economy of their 

community, and to be able to create additional jobs, whether it be 

on the farm or manufacturing or performing finished products of 

our commodities after we grow them, so it is a critical issue. It is 

the most restraining issue that we have outside of regulation. 

Senator MERKLEY. I certainly look forward to working with you 

all as we endeavor to address this challenge. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Dr. Hill, my friend from New Jersey outlined 

a very graphic situation in North Carolina, and in a minute I want 

to give you an opportunity to respond to that because the response 

on the record will be helpful to hundreds of people, but there are 

thousands of people listening on television. I think they need to 

know that I think that what you are about to tell us is that it 

doesn’t have to be that way, and in your farms in Iowa you have 

a solution there. 

But what we are talking about with regard to CERCLA and 

EPCRA is a reporting requirement, and Congress thought—we 

thought we had recognized that certain farmers should be excluded 

from this reporting requirement, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit disagreed with this exemption. The decision has 

now been stayed, and farmers really don’t know where they are. 

I notice that Mr. Scuse—in his testimony, Secretary Scuse said 

that we need a legislative fix. And I think probably, Dr. Hill and 

Mr. Duvall, you agree with that. Mr. Scuse said, ‘‘We cannot keep 

putting farmers on notice, wondering when they will be hit with 

legal liability for untimely or inaccurate reporting.’’ So, I think 

maybe we have bipartisan support here, and consensus, that we 

need a legislative fix. 

I will tell the members of the panel that Senator Fischer and 

Senator Donnelly, a Republican and a Democrat, intend to introduce legislation this week, the Fair Agriculture Reporting Method 

Act, which would clarify this rule to exempt all animal feeding operations from CERCLA reporting and small operations from 

EPCRA reporting requirements. 

So, if you could speak to that, Dr. Hill and Mr. Duvall, but also 

go ahead and finish your thought, which might give some reassurance in Duplin County, North Carolina, that they don’t have to experience what was described by my friend from New Jersey. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you. Well, first of all, I would say we would 

support that bill 100 percent. We need clarity. What producers fear 

now is that they are going to use inadequate tools to try to estimate these emissions, and then, if they are wrong, they are going 

to get huge penalties. So that bill would be supported by us. 

I think Senator Booker misrepresented the pork industry in 

North Carolina. I worked in North Carolina for 5 years. That is a 

gross misrepresentation of the farms in North Carolina. They do 

use different technology than we do in Iowa. They have a growing 

crop year round—we do not—so they can use spray fields to apply 

mainly dewater the lagoons. It is not raw manure that they are 

putting on the Bermuda grass. 

101 

In Iowa, almost all of our manure today is incorporated at the 

4 to 6 inch, No. 1, to prevent runoff; No. 2, to prevent smell. So, 

we feel like we have made tremendous progress in this manure application, and there is new technology for pit additives, polymers 

that reduce odor dramatically that producers are using, that, along 

with cover crops. We see a tremendous increase in cover crops in 

Iowa. So I think producers are trying to do everything they can to 

be good stewards. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Duvall, what would the Farm Bureau think 

about this legislation that I described from Senator Donnelly and 

Senator Fischer? And do we agree that what we are talking about 

here is an unfortunate decision by the Circuit Court about a reporting requirement on these small operations? 

Mr. DUVALL. We do agree with that, Senator, and we applaud 

the Senators that are getting involved in trying to fix something 

that is wrong, that is wrong, and be very difficult. My neighbor to 

my left here has explained it very eloquently. It would be put our 

farmers at risk. I have 400 mama cows that have a calf by their 

side, spread over 1,500 acres in Gainsbourg, Georgia. How in the 

world am I going to monitor that? How am I going to report that? 

And then I have four chicken houses. How am I going to report the 

emissions of those animals? 

It just puts us a big liability. There is no need in doing it, and 

it was not the intent of the Congress that we think it was, so we 

would agree with that and applaud it. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our witnesses for joining in this very important 

conversation. 

In my home State of Illinois, the agricultural community is our 

backbone, but also our heart. I have witnessed firsthand how, when 

our farmers thrive, the entire State thrives. 

One policy of critical importance to our farmers is the Renewable 

Fuel Standard, which requires our transportation fuel to be mixed 

with biofuels. Since it was enacted, the policy has helped us cut our 

dependence on foreign oil and our greenhouse gas emissions, which 

is critical to our efforts to combat climate change. 

It is also an important economic policy. In Illinois alone, the RFS 

supports more than 4,000 jobs and generates more than $5 billion 

in economic impact. Nationwide, it supports 86,000 jobs and has 

helped generate $8.7 billion in tax revenues that go to schools, 

roads, firefighters, all the first responders. 

Mr. Scuse, can you please share how the RFS is helping revive 

rural and agricultural communities? 

Mr. SCUSE. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to comment on the Chairman’s comment earlier about Governor Carney 

and his opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard. It deals with 

the purchase of the RINs, or the credits, and the blending, and that 

is something that needs to be addressed because of the speculation 

that has driven the cost of those RINs up, and that is something 

that does need to be addressed. 

102 

But when you look at the Renewable Fuel Standard and what it 

has been able to do for our rural communities, we are producing 

4.6 billion, 4.8 billion bushels of corn now every year. If we weren’t 

using approximately 4.5 billion bushels of that for the ethanol industry, which is improving our environment, the price of corn 

would be so far below production that we would not be able to 

produce corn in this country. 

And when you look at the feed value of the by-product, in 2012, 

when we had one of the worst droughts in the history of the United 

States and there were those that were arguing to set the Renewable Fuel Standard aside because of the fear that there would not 

be enough corn, livestock producers—I traveled across the United 

States talking to producers during the drought—livestock producers in every single State that I visited said please do not allow 

EPA to set that fuel standard aside; we need the dry distillers 

grain to feed our livestock, whether it was the dairy industry, the 

pork industry, or the beef industry. 

So, when you look at a more cost effective feed, if you look at the 

money—and Senator Moran said it like you just did—the health of 

our rural communities is depending on the health and well being 

of our farmers and ranchers in this country, and the Renewable 

Fuel Standard has done that; it has created jobs, it has improved 

the environment, and it has given our producers another outlet for 

the crops that they produce to help keep those rural communities 

viable. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So changing biofuel production in this 

country, as EPA Administrator Pruitt, who comes from an oil producing State, has called to do for the RFS, could actually negatively 

impact farm prices and farm income. 

Mr. SCUSE. Yes, it could have, and would have, a large negative 

impact on the price that our producers are receiving for the corn 

that they produce. And the reality is most vehicles on the road 

today could use E–15. And we now have stations across the United 

States that are now putting in blend pumps so that producers or 

consumers have a choice, they can get E–15; and in many cases 

now there are stations that are providing E–85, so I think that is 

the direction that we need to go in, with a renewable energy, not 

one that we have to pump out of the ground that is not renewable. 

And again, this one is helping our rural communities across the 

country and our livestock producers. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I have been burning E–85 in 

my F–150 since 2006, so she burns nice and clean. 

Fifty-five percent of my home State is experiencing drought conditions, and the trend nationally is that drought conditions are on 

the rise. Whether you believe they are associated with changing climate or not, the fact is that our farmers and ranchers are concerned that growing seasons are changing, and not necessarily for 

the better. 

Mr. Teske, as a farmer and a leader in the agricultural community, can you please share what types of tools and resources farmers and ranchers need to help you adapt to these changing climate 

conditions? 

Mr. TESKE. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. In Kansas, it is very 

obvious that we have a changing climate, and so, you know, I see 

103 

farmers getting ready to plant corn and going out in the fields in 

March, and I go to just shake my head. You know, there is a coffee 

shop thing that everybody here, they get their machines ready, and 

then they want to be the first ones out in the field, but actually 

it is working more and more. In my own operation, I was an organic farmer for 13 years. I finally gave that up because of the 

changing weather patterns. And our springs have changed so much 

that it got to the point where I couldn’t slip in between weather 

events and get the ground worked up and worked down and planted, so I had to change my operation to match the weather patterns. 

I wish I was still organic. 

Farmers are planting more and more on catastrophic events. I 

heard the Governor of Iowa, a few years back, talking about it was 

the goal of Iowa to deal with climate change by tiling the entire 

State. You know, weather patterns affect different areas dramatically, and I happen to be on top of the world, so I don’t have to 

worry about floods, but I do have to worry about maintaining my 

stream banks and dealing with ever changing climate, especially 

with livestock. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very excited 

you are holding this hearing today. I am a rancher, so I appreciate 

Senator Duckworth’s comments about farming and ranching communities as the backbone and the heart of a State, because that 

is true in Nebraska as well. 

So, thank you, Senator. 

And what a great panel we have; Farmers Union, Farm Bureau. 

I loved your comments, sir, on the RFS and E–15. I have some legislation on that, so that is great. 

I appreciated, Dr. Hill, that you had the opportunity to respond 

when Senator Wicker asked you to earlier comments made by Senator Booker, so I appreciate that. My husband and I, we do have 

a cattle ranch. Our sons are fourth generation Sand Hills ranchers. 

We understand conservation. We understand being true environmentalists. Our family does; our neighbors in the Sand Hills do; ag 

producers all across the State of Nebraska do; and ag producers, 

farmers and ranchers, all across the United States understand it. 

We take care of the land. We live on the land. We want clean air, 

we want clean water, and we manage our livelihood, our lives to 

make sure that we have that and that we continue to preserve it 

for future generations. 

I am going to talk to another rancher now. So, Mr. Hansen, 

thank you so much for being here. I would like to build off of Senator Barrasso’s comments a little bit, if we can. In your statement, 

you discussed reporting requirements for animal waste odors under 

CERCLA and the EPCRA, and with CERCLA reports, those are directed to the National Response Center, and that is operated by the 

United States Coast Guard. I don’t know if people are aware of 

that. 

They are used by the Federal Government to facilitate a Government coordinated emergency response effort to animal waste odors, 

104 

and to me, this really doesn’t make a lot of sense. Not only is there 

no added value of these reporting requirements, but the abundance 

of farm reports is going to jam up the response personnel at the 

National Response Center and prevent them from responding, I 

think, to true emergencies. 

Mr. Hansen, can you please describe what measures cattle producers would have to take to comply with all of these reporting requirements? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator. We have no tools to do that, 

so I can’t answer the question, I’m sorry. 

Senator FISCHER. Well, then you can’t fill out the report, right? 

Mr. HANSEN. Pardon? 

Senator FISCHER. You can’t fill out the report. 

Mr. HANSEN. Exactly. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. 

Mr. Duvall and Dr. Hill, you both were talking about privacy 

concerns with these reports, and also concerns with activists coming onto personal private property. Do you have anything to add 

to comments that you made earlier on that, either one of you? 

Mr. DUVALL. You know, our farmers and ranchers are in a very 

difficult economy right now; we don’t need to put any burden on 

them. And this presents a huge liability issue for them. Farmers 

and ranchers aren’t doing anything wrong out there, but when you 

give them a tool as far as reporting there, and I would answer the 

same, we have no way of measuring that. 

And we would have to hire some expert, and the Government 

could disagree with the expert and make us a hire a different one 

and spend thousands and thousands of dollars that we can’t afford 

to do in a very bad economy. Even when it is good we couldn’t afford it. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hansen, you also mention in your written testimony the 

compliance challenges producers face as a result of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure, the SPCC rule for on-farm 

fuel storage. And while WRDA did include a provision that I championed that would provide more flexibility, this overreach continues 

to weigh heavily on the minds of farmers and ranchers in Nebraska 

and across our country. 

As you noted, this rule was originally applied to oil refineries, 

but now ag producers are being forced to also comply. So, what do 

you believe must be done so that we can alleviate that burden of 

that SPCC rule for our farmers and ranchers on the fuel storage? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator. You know, I guess I would 

have to say we just need to exempt the people out on the ground. 

It is such a different situation; the risk is minimal compared to 

what the Act is designed to address. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. And in the previous Administration 

there was a study done that we had requested on this Committee, 

and I would just point out that one of the areas studied was leakage with jet fuel. I don’t know too many farms and ranches that 

have jet fuel there. So, I think when you have a flawed study, it 

leads to flawed policy and flawed decisionmaking. 

So I would hope that we could move ahead not just on the 

CERCLA rule, but also on the SPCC and in other number of rules 

105 

that are out there that people on the land, everyday producers who 

are trying to take care of their families, take care of their communities, find such a disadvantage in trying to fight Government 

every single day. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I will start on a lighter note. Before we started the hearing, I 

asked Mr. Duvall, I said, where did you get a name like Zippy, and 

he told me, and I think this is worth repeating, just very briefly, 

Mr. Duvall, also known as Zippy. I don’t know many Zippys—— 

Mr. DUVALL. Mr. Senator, this is the first time I’ve ever been 

asked that. 

Senator CARPER. Probably in a congressional hearing. 

Mr. DUVALL. In a congressional hearing, I will tell you that. 

Senator CARPER. We could put you under oath, if it is necessary. 

Mr. DUVALL. Well, by my father’s words, he said I was my mother’s first C-section, second child. He was wanting a big family so 

he could get all his farm work done, and it disappointed him, so 

the nurses said, that’s a piece of cake; we’ll put a zipper in her 

stomach. So, I got nicknamed Zipper and it got moved over to Zippy 

in the years to come. 

Senator CARPER. Does not seem to have impeded your progress 

in life, Mr. President. 

Mr. DUVALL. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Teske, I wanted to just clarify what I think 

you said earlier. In the past year, I understood you said the Agriculture Advisory Committee has not yet heard from this Administration. Is that what you said? 

Mr. TESKE. Could you repeat that? 

Senator CARPER. I thought I heard you say earlier, you talked 

about hearing from the previous Administration, I think with respect to the Agriculture Advisory Committee, and I think you also 

said that you have not heard yet, by phone, by e-mail, whatever, 

from the current Administration. Did I hear you correctly? 

Mr. TESKE. Yes. Administrator McCarthy had reappointed me 

right before she left that position, with the intention of having 

some continuation from the previous advisory group to the next advisory group, and so I would have liked to have thought that, if 

there was any action going on, I would have known about it, and 

it has been total silence. 

Senator CARPER. All right; thanks. 

Mr. TESKE. I think that is a loss for us all. 

Senator CARPER. I think you are probably right. Thank you for 

telling us that. 

If I could, Mr. Secretary, Secretary Scuse, a question relating to 

waters of the U.S. Help us to understand, was it not the intention 

and the result of the Obama administration’s Clean Water Rule to 

create certainty in the regulatory process? 

I heard for years that farmers didn’t understand; they needed 

clarity in terms of where they would get in trouble. Developers 

needed clarity and certainty, predictability, with whether they 

would get into trouble by developing or raising crops in ways that 

were inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. And as a result of 

106 

that, the effort was launched to develop what we call the waters 

of the U.S. We did literally a town hall meeting on a farm in Delaware, as you may recall, and had farmers there, developers there, 

and we had folks from EPA, from the Army Corps of Engineers. 

This was like a couple years ago, to actually understand what was 

being asked; what was needed in the way of certainty. 

And it sounds like, from some of the testimony we have heard 

here and comments in other places, that everything was fine, and 

we didn’t have uncertainty before. Actually, I think we had a lot. 

So WOTUS was an effort to try to deal with that. 

You were in the middle of this as the Acting Secretary, the Acting Deputy Secretary, and so forth, so your thoughts, please, I 

think would be illuminating. You were on the inside. 

Mr. SCUSE. Thank you, Senator. I think, you know, we need to 

take a step back and look at why all of this happened. And if memory serves me correctly, all of this resulted from a Supreme Court 

hearing with the EPA in the Chicago area, where there was a wetland that they deemed was waters of the U.S. that was not connected to any other waters. 

So, when you look at the confusion with that case, and then the 

EPA attempted to define what in fact were waters of the U.S. and 

the overreach by the EPA in attempting to come to what constituted waters of the U.S., I think that is when we started down 

the road to look at what does constitute waters of the U.S.; what 

do we need to put in place to protect certain waters that we have 

across the United States. 

So, the last Administration attempted to bring that certainty, in 

fact, to the producers and to other areas of the United States to 

show what in fact was waters of the U.S. 

As the Senator pointed out, there were the hearings in the State 

of Delaware, reached out to all of our communities that we thought 

would be impacted. But unfortunately, I don’t know, Senator, that 

that happened in other areas of the United States. But this was 

an attempt by the Obama administration to bring some clarity that 

was being demanded by all the sectors; not just the agriculture sector, but other sectors as well, as to what did in fact constitute 

waters of the U.S. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. My recollection was that 

as the Waters of the U.S. rule was being developed, there were 4 

years of extensive public outreach and regulation development—4 

years; hundreds of meetings with farmers, ranchers, developers, 

State and local leaders, and others, including in our State; a review 

of some 1,200 peer reviewed scientific studies; robust legal policy 

and economic analyses; and consideration of over 1 million public 

comments without any effort to rebut the rule or build a new informed or credible basis to pursue a different course. A million 

comments, and I am told they were essentially all responded to. 

So, I just want to put that out there for the record. Thank you 

for your clarification, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could, maybe one last question, and this will 

be for the entire panel. 

Again, thank you all for coming here today. I appreciate what 

you do in your lives in the real world, the rest of the world, with 

your families and all, and we appreciate very much your being here 

107 

and sharing your insights with us, regardless of what your first 

names are. 

As the Chairman knows, I like to look for win-win opportunities, 

he does, too, and rather than being in conflict with one another, I 

see many potential opportunities for win-win outcomes with regard 

to environmental policy in farming and ranching communities. You 

have talked about that today; each one of you have. 

For example, if there is an application in fertilizer that could reduce farmers’ input costs and reduce nitrogen runoff and greenhouse gas emissions of nitrous oxide; roll till farming is another we 

oftentimes hear about, but oftentimes there are barriers that prevent us from achieving these win-win outcomes. 

We here in Congress can help break down those barriers so that 

we can then all seize these opportunities, and maybe each of you 

could just give us a good example of a win-win opportunity out 

there that is waiting to be seized if we would just seize it, and how 

you might help us achieve that. 

And if I could, I am just going to start off. I was joking with him 

earlier; he had his hat on and everything, and I said, I was just 

listening yesterday to one of my favorite CDs, Glenn Campbell’s 

Greatest Hits. The Chairman and I are big music buffs. And the 

first song there was Rhinestone Cowboy. You came in here today, 

and I said, there’s a rhinestone cowboy. 

But actually, you are the real deal, so would you just lead us off, 

please, Niels? Would you just lead us off, please? Again, we are 

looking for a win-win, just an example of another win-win opportunity. You cited a number of them in each of your testimonies, 

win-win opportunities where cleaner environment, cleaner air, 

cleaner water, and actually more profitable farming actually coexist 

well. They work together; they don’t exclude another. 

But just another, maybe, example of where we can do that, 

should do that. If you have an example of an area that you think 

is fertile for us to explore and to participate, to help nurture, we 

would be happy to do that. If anybody else wants to jump in. 

Zippy, you look like you are ready to say something. 

Mr. DUVALL. Yes, sir, Mr. Senator. There are a lot of situations 

where we have regulations that are overlapping, and we are looking into things twice, where, you know, if we could just simplify it 

and do it efficiently, for example, FIFRA has, over 40 years, had 

the responsibility of doing approval of pesticides. You know, there 

is no reason for the Clean Water Act to be involved in it and ask 

them to make the same judgments that FIFRA has been doing for 

40 years. And that is just one example. 

You know, farmers and ranchers want to do the right thing, and 

in the past we used to go to our extension service or the FSA to 

ask for advice and get help and look for a partner for us to do the 

right thing on the farm. We are scared of our Federal agencies 

now. We are actually fearful of them because we know that they 

could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to arrange 

permitting and hiring consultants and lawyers to be able to get to 

that. 

We want to be a partner with our Federal Government. We want 

to have agencies that are friendly to us, and we are hoping that 

we can work with you to make that happen. 

108 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Others, please. 

Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HILL. I would use the example of the nutrient reduction program that we have in Iowa that is supported by our Governor, our 

past Governor, and our current Governor, and also by our secretary 

of agriculture. It is a voluntary cooperative project; it was just 

funded by the State legislature for over a 10 year period for $300 

million. It is projects that producers work in conjunction with State 

regulatory agencies to put processes in place to reduce runoff, reduce contamination of water, and I think it is the right way to go, 

a cooperative, voluntary program, rather than somebody from 

Washington coming down and saying this is what you have to do. 

Producers respond to it a heck of a lot better. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that. 

I would just say to Secretary Scuse it reminds me a little bit of 

what we did in Delaware, what we have done in Delaware. 

Would you opine for us, too, Michael? 

Mr. SCUSE. You know, Senator, there are a lot of different examples. You know, I look at what we did in Delaware when we created—when you created, as then-Governor, the Nutrient Management Commission and the great things that we have been able to 

do to help clean up our waters that ultimately discharge into the 

Chesapeake. 

I mean, there is a great example of everyone working together 

to make that happen. And the latest Chesapeake Bay model, I 

think you will be pleased to know, will show that Delaware has 

had tremendous improvements in a very short period of time. 

You know, we heard about the act for those that are endangered 

species. I am here to tell you that, yes, there are some things that 

could be done differently, but in my home State of Delaware—your 

home State of Delaware, Governor—pretty much every day now I 

am seeing bald eagles, something that, when I was a child, we 

never ever saw today. You look at some of the other things that are 

occurring where—— 

Senator CARPER. Bald eagles or did you say Philadelphia Eagles? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I couldn’t resist. I could not resist. Excuse me. 

Mr. SCUSE. Good catch, Senator. I said bald eagles. I meant 

Philadelphia Eagles. 

You know, you look at, by working together, we all know, all of 

us at this table understand that there is a serious issue with honey 

bees across the United States, and with USDA, EPA, and our State 

partners working together to help find a solution to those problems 

in areas, we are making a difference. 

The monarch butterfly is an issue where we are seeing rapid declines of the monarch butterfly. But now we have States working 

with our Federal partners to plant, you know, milkweed along 

some of our highways to make sure that, you know, we have the 

proper habitat for those areas. 

And I know there is legislation that you are working here to 

renew that, but the Pesticides Registration Act that helps companies do the research for our producers to help them do a better job 

109 

and get better projects to our producers, there is another area 

where these things actually do work. 

Can there be a better job? There is no doubt about it. Senator, 

there can be a better job in many of these areas. But I think what 

we need to do when we start looking at regulation is working together with all of those that are ultimately impacted, and listening 

and finding a solution. And in that way we can eliminate, in my 

opinion, some of the problems that we have had over past Administrations with the implementation of regulations. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask the other panelists if you approve that message; would you raise your hand? 

Let the record show the other four panelists raised their hands. 

Good. 

All right, Mr. Teske, please, same question, please. 

Mr. TESKE. Thank you, Senator. There are two things I would 

like to discuss, and both of them are in regards to mitigating and 

adapting to climate change, which is something I am passionate 

personally about. No. 1 is whatever we do as we move forward to 

mitigate climate problems, a huge part of that is going to have to 

be agricultural involvement. We are the stewards of the land. We 

are the stewards of the carbon sink. 

Another, if cap and trade ever comes to be, and we can reimplement a carbon trading program, that is a win-win all the way 

around. That is sequestering carbon; that is making better soils; 

that is paying a producer a stipend for doing the right thing. That 

is just logical. And the models there can be very successful, and it 

can make significant differences quickly. It isn’t going to be the 

only solution to the problem, but we are a key part of it. 

And then the other one is the further evolution of the renewable 

fuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard. If we can grow beyond the 

status of corn ethanol into perennial crops and higher value crops 

that use less moisture and less nutrients, we could see dramatic 

differences in our future with renewable fuels. 

So, I think there is potential in both and win-wins in both. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I kid him when I say I go to Wyoming about 

every other week, Camden, Wyoming; it is a little town just south 

of Delaware. 

But we have great pressures in our State, a little State. A lot of 

people want to come to our beaches; great 5 star beaches. And a 

lot of people come, which is good. Tourism is real important for us, 

but it drives development, and we have to be careful that we just 

don’t overdevelop our State. 

One of the things we worked on when I was Governor, and before 

that, Mike Castle, and since then with your administration when 

you worked with Governor Minner, was how do we encourage farmers to stay on the land. And one of the best ways to encourage 

farmers to stay on the land, instead of development taking over, is 

with farmers being able to make money and to be profitable. And 

Mr. Teske, you just mentioned a couple of things that will actually 

help to do that, and I think we need to be mindful of that. 

There are obviously things that we disagree on that we talked 

about here today, but there is actually a lot that we agree on, and 

the Chairman’s colleague from Wyoming, Mike Enzi, Senator Enzi 

110 

likes to talk about the 80/20 rule. When I first heard him talk 

about it, he said the 80/20 rule explained why he and Ted Kennedy 

got so much done on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension 

Committee; one a very conservative Republican, the other a very 

liberal Democrat. 

Mike Enzi introduced me to the 80/20 rule. He said, Ted and I 

agree on 80 percent of the stuff; we disagree on 20 percent of the 

stuff. And what we decided to do was focus on the 80 percent 

where we agree; set the other 20 percent aside for another day. 

That is the 80/20 rule, right out of the mouth of a former mayor 

of Gillette, Wyoming. It is actually a good rule for not just the 

Health, Education, Labor Committee, but a good rule for this Committee and I think for the Congress as a whole. 

This has been a wonderful hearing. Thank you all. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for bringing us together. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Mr. Hansen, it looked like you were trying to say something to 

answer one of the responses. Anything you would like to add today? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator. I would like to address Senator Carper’s question. I have to ask your forgiveness. I am very 

dedicated about what I do, but I can’t hear a thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. When it comes to working together, the field is ripe 

with opportunity in the West on Federal lands, and in our operation we have proven that there is common ground, and there is 

a lot of common ground, but we always run into the headache of 

the Federal regulation. 

NEPA is a huge one. We get tied up in the paperwork, the decisionmaking process on something that should be really simple to 

do. So, expanded authority on categorical exclusions, if we could get 

a lot of the red tape pulled out of the way, the unnecessary questions and timetables, would really assist us in improving things on 

the land. And every time we do something good on the land, it affects everything. On our operation, we have increased our elk population, our mule deer population, our antelope population, and have 

increased our livestock, creating a more profitable operation. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. That was worth waiting for. Thanks 

very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. And when I asked three of you earlier about 

the time it would take to try to do some of this paperwork requirements, I think you had said, Mr. Hansen, you didn’t have the tools 

and the time; Dr. Hill as well. 

While you raised the issue about trying to report, and Senator 

Fischer did as well, to this National Response Center on the release, it is the Coast Guard, of all things. They have expressed concern that this dramatic increase in reporting is going to overwhelm 

the capacity to deal with this. They estimate the volume of calls 

that they get now, the NRC would increase from about 100 calls 

a day to over 1,000, hindering their own ability to respond to real 

emergencies. So that is the additional side of this that sometimes 

Government comes up with ideas and mandates that make it a lot 

harder for them to do the job that we need them to do in terms 

of the guarding of the coasts. 

111 

I do have one question for you, Mr. Duvall, because it has to do 

with waters of the U.S. and the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers is the agency that makes the vast majority of jurisdictional 

determinations that identify waters that are regulated under the 

Clean Water Act. Now, according to testimony this Committee 

heard during a hearing with the Corps last year, in April, the 

Corps was not included fully in this whole process that we just had 

outlined here, in terms of developing the 2015 WOTUS rule. You 

talked about 1 million people testifying and all of those things. 

In fact, the Corps stated that they did not believe that the rule 

and the preamble, as ultimately finalized, they say ‘‘were viable 

from a factual, scientific, or legal basis.’’ And the Corps went on to 

say ‘‘It would be incredibly difficult for the Corps leaders, regulatory and legal staff, to advance and defend this rule.’’ So that is 

the Corps of Engineers. 

They also testified in statements and characterizations that the 

WOTUS rule is a joint product by the EPA and the Corps, which 

is what the EPA said, a joint product of the EPA and the Corps, 

the Corps says are flat false, flat out false. 

So, my question to you is, given these statements by the Corps 

of Engineers, how much faith do we have in the science behind the 

current WOTUS rule as proposed by the previous Administration? 

Mr. DUVALL. We have no faith in it because in different Corps 

districts you have different people that are making those determinations and judgments, and there is no scientific basis that they 

can base their decisions on. And we can show you situation after 

situation where farmers have spent money with consultants and 

lawyers, and were able to put in for a permit, for a Corps or a regulatory person to say, no, I don’t agree with you and send you back 

to the drawing board to spend that money again and try to get 

them to agree with you. And it is all over the board; there is no 

consistency. 

You know, I had the opportunity to have lunch with Mr. Pruitt 

the other day, and he asked me what did we need in the Clean 

Water Act, a definition of navigable waters. I said, you know, a 

farmer knows his land better than anyone else does anywhere, especially better than the people looking at it from a computer, and 

we ought to be able to ride out in that field in our pickup and simply be able to identify what navigable waters are and waters of the 

U.S. And if we could do that, we could take a huge financial burden 

off our farmers. We could create more jobs, add to our communities, 

and we are not going to destroy it. My land, every piece of it is like 

my house. I am not going to do anything to destroy or hurt my land 

or the water around it, because I want my great-great-grandchildren to be able to be there. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper, you had a quick question? 

Senator CARPER. Just a quick unanimous consent request, Mr. 

Chairman, to submit additional documents related to the topic of 

environmental regulatory impacts on farming and ranching communities for the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

112 


29478.076
113 


29478.077
114 


29478.078
115 


29478.079
116 


29478.080
117 


29478.081
118 


29478.082
119 


29478.083
120 


29478.084
121 


29478.085
122 


29478.086
123 


29478.087
124 


29478.088
125 


29478.089
126 


29478.090
127 


29478.091
128 


29478.092
129 


29478.093
130 


29478.094
131 


29478.095
132 


29478.096
133 


29478.097
134 


29478.098
135 


29478.099
136 


29478.100
137 


29478.101
138 


29478.102
139 


29478.103
140 


29478.104
141 


29478.105
142 


29478.106
143 


29478.107
144 


29478.108
145 


29478.109
146 


29478.110
147 


29478.111
148 


29478.112
149 


29478.113
150 


29478.114
151 


29478.115
152 


29478.116
153 


29478.117
154 


29478.118
155 


29478.119
156 


29478.120
157 


29478.121
158 


29478.122
159 


29478.123
160 


29478.124
161 


29478.125
162 


29478.126
163 


29478.127
164 


29478.128
165 


29478.129
166 


29478.130
167 


29478.131
168 


29478.132
169 


29478.133
170 


29478.134
171 


29478.135
172 


29478.136
173 


29478.137
174 


29478.138
175 


29478.139
176 


29478.140
177 


29478.141
178 


29478.142
179 


29478.143
180 


29478.144
181 


29478.145
182 


29478.146
183 


29478.147
184 


29478.148
185 


29478.149
186 


29478.150
187 


29478.151
188 


29478.152
189 


29478.153
190 


29478.154
191 


29478.155
192 


29478.156
193 


29478.157
194 


29478.158
195 


29478.159
196 


29478.160
197 


29478.161
198 


29478.162
199 


29478.163
200 


29478.164
201 


29478.165
202 


29478.166
203 


29478.167
204 


29478.168
205 


29478.169
206 


29478.170
207 


29478.171
208 


29478.172
209 


29478.173
210 


29478.174
211 


29478.175
212 


29478.176
213 


29478.177
214 


29478.178
215 


29478.179
216 


29478.180
217 


29478.181
218 


29478.182
219 


29478.183
220 


29478.184
221 


29478.185
222 


29478.186
223 


29478.187
224 


29478.188
225 


29478.189
226 


29478.190
227 


29478.191
228 


29478.192
229 


29478.193
230 


29478.194
231 


29478.195
232 


29478.196
233 


29478.197
234 


29478.198
235 


29478.199
236 


29478.200
237 


29478.201
238 


29478.202
239 


29478.203
240 


29478.204
241 


29478.205
242 


29478.206
243 


29478.207
244 


29478.208
245 


29478.209
246 


29478.210
247 


29478.211
248 


29478.212
249 


29478.213
250 


29478.214
251 


29478.215
252 


29478.216
253 


29478.217
254 

Senator CARPER. And again to say to our friends and witnesses, 

thank you so much for joining us today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you all. 

Other members may submit questions for the record, and we ask 

that you respond quickly. The record of this hearing will stay open 

for the next 2 weeks. I want to thank all the witnesses for your 

time, your testimony on this very important issue. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ