H5608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

Lake in central Minnesota from U.S. 

Coast Guard licensing and inspection 

requirements. 

This bill provides rather narrow regulatory relief. However, because this 

bill was rushed to legislation, to markup without first having a hearing on 

the bill itself or having the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation consider the specific bill, no one can say for sure what 

consequences might arise in the future. 

My concerns are somewhat allayed by 

learning the State of Minnesota has an 

adequate program to regulate vessels 

operating on its inland lakes, including 

Mille Lacs. 

Nonetheless, the Coast Guard has expressed concerns that the limitations 

imposed on its vessel safety authorities 

by this bill could create uncertainty 

and some confusion among the boating 

public, especially regarding marine 

casualty investigations and maritime 

liability. 

Notwithstanding these objections, 

and because the bill, as reported, would 

no longer vacate the Coast Guard’s 2010 

determination that Mille Lacs Lake is 

navigable, I do not object to the bill 

moving forward today. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank my respected colleague for his kind remarks, 

and I ask my colleagues to join me in 

supporting this important legislation 

to Minnesota. 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

as well. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 

CRAVAACK) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5797, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

The title was amended so as to read: 

‘‘A bill to exempt the owners and operators of vessels operating on Mille Lacs 

Lake, Minnesota, from certain Federal 

requirements.’’. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

b 1940 

FARMERS UNDERTAKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAND STEWARDSHIP 

ACT 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 3158) to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to change the Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure rule with 

respect to certain farms, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 3158 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farmers Undertake Environmental Land Stewardship 

Act’’ or the ‘‘FUELS Act’’. 

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, 

CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE 

RULE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in 

implementing the Spill Prevention, Control, 

and Countermeasure rule with respect to any 

farm, shall— 

(1) require certification of compliance with 

such rule by— 

(A) a professional engineer for a farm 

with— 

(i) an individual tank with an aboveground 

storage capacity greater than 10,000 gallons; 

(ii) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons; or 

(iii) a history that includes a spill, as determined by the Administrator; or 

(B) the owner or operator of the farm (via 

self-certification) for a farm with— 

(i) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 10,000 gallons but less 

than 42,000 gallons; and 

(ii) no history of spills, as determined by 

the Administrator; and 

(2) exempt from all requirements of such 

rule any farm— 

(A) with an aggregate aboveground storage 

capacity of less than or equal to 10,000 gallons; and 

(B) no history of spills, as determined by 

the Administrator. 

(b) CALCULATION OF AGGREGATE ABOVEGROUND STORAGE CAPACITY.—For the purposes of subsection (a), the aggregate aboveground storage capacity of a farm excludes 

all containers on separate parcels that have 

a capacity that is less than 1,320 gallons. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act, the following terms apply: 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2) FARM.—The term ‘‘farm’’ has the meaning given such term in section 112.2 of title 

40, Code of Federal Regulations. 

(3) GALLON.—The term ‘‘gallon’’ refers to a 

United States liquid gallon. 

(4) SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE RULE.—The term ‘‘Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule’’ 

means the regulation promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency under 

part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. CRAWFORD) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. BOSWELL) each 

will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Arkansas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

may have 5 legislative days in which to 

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 

3158. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank Members from both parties who joined in 

cosponsoring this bipartisan bill that 

will provide regulatory relief to our 

family farmers, in particular, my colleague, Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very 

much. 

The EPA-mandated Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, or SPCC, requires that oil storage facilities with a capacity of over 

1,320 gallons make costly infrastructure modifications to reduce the possibility of oil spills. 

The regulations require farmers to 

construct a containment facility, like 

a dike or a basin, which must retain 110 

percent of the fuel in the container. 

These mandated infrastructure improvements—along with the necessary 

inspection and certification by a specially licensed professional engineer— 

will cost many farmers tens of thousands of dollars. In some cases, compliance costs could reach higher than 

$60,000 for a single farmer in my district. 

The SPCC program dates back to 

1973, shortly after the Clean Water Act 

was signed into law. In the last decade, 

it has strictly come down on agriculture, and the rules have been 

amended, delayed, and extended dozens 

of times, creating enormous confusion 

in the farming community. On top of 

that, the EPA has failed to engage in 

effective outreach to producers and cooperatives on SPCC application. 

In 2009, the EPA lifted a 2006 rule 

that suspended compliance requirements for small farms with oil storage 

of 10,000 gallons or less. The rule applies to more than just fuel. In fact, it 

applies to hydraulic oil, adjuvant oil, 

crop oil, vegetable oil, and even animal 

fat. It was scheduled to go into effect 

this past November. 

Last summer, I headed up an effort 

to send a bipartisan letter with over 

100 cosigners to EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson highlighting problems 

with the program and requesting a permanent fix. At the very least, I requested a delay so farmers impacted by 

last year’s natural disasters would 

have more time to comply. The EPA 

responded only a few weeks before the 

November deadline and issued a statement saying they would not begin enforcement until May of 2013. While we 

were thankful for the delay, this action 

still didn’t do anything to fix the burden on small farms. It just kicked the 

can down the road. 

The FUELS Act is simple. It revises 

the SPCC regulations to be reflective 

of a producer’s spill risk and financial 

resources. The exemption level would 

be adjusted upward from an unworkable 1,320 gallons of oil storage to an 

amount that would protect small 

farms—10,000 gallons. The proposal 

would also place a greater degree of responsibility on farmers and ranchers to 

self-certify compliance if their storage 

facilities exceed the exemption level. 

To add another layer of environmental 

protection, the producer must be able 

to demonstrate that he or she has no 

history of oil spills. 

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is necessary because the existing regulations 

are not only burdensome to small 

farmers; they’re unenforceable. According to USDA, the current regulations would bring more than 70 percent 

of farms into the SPCC regulatory net. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5609 

This is more than 1.5 million farms in 

the SPCC regulatory net next year 

alone. 

The University of Arkansas, Division 

of Agriculture did a study recently 

concluding that the FUELS Act would 

exempt over 80 percent of producers 

from SPCC compliance. It could save, 

in my home State, up to $240 million in 

costs. Over the entire country, it could 

save small farmers up to $3.36 billion. 

This year, the ag sector of the economy is facing a crisis. Over two-thirds 

of the Nation is being impacted by 

drought, and farm revenue has dropped 

substantially. Food costs are projected 

to skyrocket for consumers. On top of 

that, the fate of a multiyear farm bill 

is still unknown, creating long-term 

uncertainty for the agriculture community. The last thing the government 

should be doing right now is imposing 

a regulation on producers that could 

cost our Nation’s family farmers up to 

$3.36 billion during next year’s planting 

season. There is absolutely no justification for such an expensive regulation, especially when the EPA cannot 

provide data or even anecdotal evidence of agriculture spills. 

By nature of occupation, family 

farmers are already careful stewards of 

the land and water. No one has more at 

stake than those who work on the 

ground from which they derive their 

livelihood. 

I urge adoption of H.R. 3158 and reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. CRAWFORD, I believe that you 

pretty much covered the details of this. 

And I see the gentleman sitting beside 

you there and I’m sure he’s going to 

add to it, so I don’t think I’ll spend a 

lot of time repeating what you said. 

But I want you to know that as a 

hands-on farmer producer, I appreciate 

the efforts you put into this to bring 

this forward because there are just too 

many times we see where the farmers 

in your State, my State, and across the 

country are burdened with these extra 

expenses and criteria that they don’t 

really need. Because you know, I know, 

and I think those of us that are familiar with the farming industry, we are 

stewards of the land. We don’t want to 

ruin the land; we certainly don’t want 

to ruin the water. 

So this is a good thing to come forth 

with this piece of legislation, to put a 

practical sense, practical application 

to the situation. It’s been delayed and 

delayed and delayed. 

It refers to American farmers. American farmers are very much dedicated 

to what they represent. And again, 

those that, as I do and as I’m sure you 

do and others, when we have fuel on 

the farm for whatever reason—to run 

the tractors, the combines, the irrigation pumps, or whatever—we’re very 

careful. The cost of the fuel and the exposure of it being stolen or something 

is something we don’t have a lot of excess sitting around these days anyway. 

Those that are large operators, seems 

to me like quite a few of them have got 

a tank wagon. 

So I appreciate what you’ve offered 

up here, and I’m very supportive of it. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Again, thank you, 

Mr. BOSWELL, not only for your support, but your real-world common 

sense as an ag producer. I appreciate it. 

I’d just like to yield 2 minutes to my 

esteemed colleague from Oklahoma 

(Mr. LANKFORD) and thank him for his 

patience. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I may not even use 

all 2 minutes of that, but I do want to 

be able to just tell the story a little bit 

of an Oklahoma farm. 

The things that they’re up against 

right now are common to farms all 

across the Midwest. They’re dealing 

with drought right now. They’re dealing with the threat of new dust particulate rules coming down from the EPA. 

They just fought through a battle to 

try to be able to have family farms be 

able to function with their own kids 

working on their family farms or their 

grandparents’ farms, or their cousin’s 

farm down the road—is that permissible or not—point source pollution 

rules that are coming down on them. 

Farm truck distance rules, if they 

want to drive 151 miles in their farm 

truck and the new regulations they 

deal with on it. All these different regulations. 

And then imagine the Federal Government contacting them and saying, 

on top of all those rules and all those 

threatened rules, now you need to go 

find a professional engineer to check 

out your fuel tank, and we want to 

send a regulator to be able to evaluate 

it. And we want you to have a whole 

new set of rules around your tank as 

well. It assumes family farms and 

farmers don’t take care of their land. 

Nothing could be further from the 

truth. 

A family farm, and farms all around 

the country, these are individuals that 

they farm that land, they take care of 

that land, that water is very important 

to them. Many of them live on well 

water itself, and so a spill into their 

groundwater is incredibly important to 

them for their own personal family as 

well. They’re great stewards of the 

land; that’s how they make their living. 

In addition to that, they’re careful 

guardians of their storage tank because 

that tank itself, if it spills, they lose a 

tremendous amount of money; and the 

margins on a farm are not very high. 

I’d like to stand with my colleagues, 

as well, to say let’s respect the farmer 

for what they’re doing already on their 

land and not send someone from Washington to come check out their farm 

and check out their tank and be able to 

evaluate all those things. Let’s allow 

some trust to the commonsense folks 

in the country that take care of our 

food and take care of the land and 

water every single day. 

With that, I’d urge my colleagues to 

support this. 

b 1950 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, we have 

no other speakers. 

In closing, I feel like we’ve defined 

what the need is. This will be very 

helpful to the Nation’s producers, and 

it’s a step in the right direction. So I 

will urge agreement and support of 

H.R. 3158. And thank you again for 

bringing this forth. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, again 

my thanks to the gentleman from Iowa 

and to those who spoke tonight. I just 

urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 

CRAWFORD) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3158, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

H.R. 6233, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012 

Ms. FOXX, from the Committee on 

Rules, submitted a privileged report 

(Rept. No. 112–644) on the resolution (H. 

Res. 752) providing for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 

available for fiscal year 2012 with the 

costs of such assistance offset by 

changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes, which 

was referred to the House Calendar and 

ordered to be printed. 

f 

MARINE DEBRIS ACT 

AMENDMENTS OF 2012 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 1171) to reauthorize and 

amend the Marine Debris Research, 

Prevention, and Reduction Act, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 1171 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Except as otherwise expressly provided, 

whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed as an amendment to a section or 

other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et 

seq.), as in effect immediately before the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3. SHORT TITLE AMENDMENT. 

Section 1 (33 U.S.C. 1951 note) is amended 

by striking ‘‘Research, Prevention, and Reduction’’. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE