H5606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

I would hope that as we move forward, we can address the concerns of 

the highway user community and ensure that this legislation is not used to 

preclude challenges to toll discount 

programs. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield such time as he may consume to 

the distinguished gentleman from New 

York (Mr. GRIMM), the sponsor of this 

bill. 

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman from Arkansas. 

Just to clarify the record, this bill, 

which I stand in strong support of—but 

actually before that, let me just say 

that I want to thank my colleague and 

friend, GREG MEEKS, for all of his work 

on this. It was a true bipartisan effort. 

But this bill, all it does is clarify what 

is already allowed by law. So to say 

that it is overly broad, it’s almost ridiculous because again, all this does is 

clarify what is already allowed by law. 

States and cities already have. There 

were challenges in court that have 

failed, and the purpose of this legislation is to make sure that those frivolous challenges do not continue to go 

forward. 

The Residential and Commuter Toll 

Fairness Act, I feel it is vital to toll 

discount programs, specifically for my 

constituents, but for all of New York 

and throughout this country. 

I would like to also thank Chairman 

MICA, who traveled to my district, to 

Staten Island, for moving this bill forward and for seeing firsthand in Staten 

Island the devastating effects and the 

impacts that tolls can have. 

Again, this bill, all it does is continue to clarify and allow the States 

and municipal governments to offer the 

discounted toll rates to residents for 

trips taken on roads, bridges, rail, bus, 

ferry, and other transportation systems. 

I introduced the legislation for one 

purpose: it was in response to a 2009 

case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit questioned the 

constitutionality of discounts for residents of towns bordering the New York 

Thruway. In New York, we simply 

can’t afford to lose our discounts. 

The majority of my district in New 

York City is an island; it’s Staten Island. And the only way to drive on or 

off the island is to cross a bridge and 

pay a toll, something many of my constituents do often as part of their daily 

commute. Without a discount, it costs 

$13 to cross the Verrazano Bridge. Yes, 

I said $13 without the Staten Island 

residential EZ-Pass discount. On the 

other side of Staten Island, going to 

New Jersey, the cash tolls on three 

bridges have just gone up to $12, and 

that amount is slated to go up in 2015 

to $15. That’s without the residential 

discount. 

b 1930 

On Staten Island, we have fought 

long and hard to reach an agreement 

on residential toll discounts, which is 

why this legislation is crucial to making sure we protect those new rates. 

The Residential Commuter Toll Fairness Act provides clarification only of 

the existing authority of local governments to issue or grant transportation 

toll, user fee or fare discount programs 

based on residential status. It also provides congressional authorization for 

discount programs. Passage of H.R. 897 

is nothing more than clarification of 

what can already be done, and I ask for 

the strong support of my colleagues. 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

First, I would just like to enter in 

the RECORD a letter from the American 

Highway Users Alliance dated August 1 

expressing concerns about the legislation. 

AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE, 

August 1, 2012. 

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: This afternoon, under suspension of the rules, the 

House will consider HR 897, the Residential 

and Commuter Toll Fairness Act of 2011, 

sponsored by New York City Representatives 

Grimm and Meeks. We write to express serious concerns about this bill. 

We are on record in support of greater tolling accountability and fairness for commuters. For example, we have endorsed HR 

3684, the Commuter Protection Act, also authored by Congressman Grimm. We share 

particular concerns about the high costs of 

tolling for New York City residents. However 

the provisions of HR 897 are not narrowly 

constructed for New York’s specific problems 

and have unintended consequences for other 

toll-payers throughout the country. 

HR 897 broadly authorizes local tolling discount programs. If this bill were narrowly 

constructed to apply to places like Staten Island, New York; where residents are only 

able to access their homes and businesses via 

tolled bridges, our concerns would be minimal. But HR 897 allows my State or local jurisdiction to charge discriminatory toll rates 

for non-residents, even on the National Highway System, and regardless of circumstance 

or impact on interstate commerce. 

In effect, this bill could actually encourage 

more tolls for all and higher tolls for selected users, authorizing locally popular 

tolling schemes that, in effect, overcharge 

interstate and long distance travelers who 

have no vote at the local ballot box. 

If States and local governments widely 

adopt the practice of tolling non-residents to 

pay higher rates than locals, it could sharply 

increase the costs of interstate tourism and 

freight. These are national concerns requiring caution from Congress. The federal government has an obligation to regulate interstate commerce. As such, HR 897 should be 

revised to ensure that interstate and nonlocal traffic is not treated unfairly, by State 

and local tolling authorities. 

Sincerely, 

GREGORY M. COHEN, 

President & CEO. 

Second, I think the gentleman from 

New York makes a compelling case for 

why the bill should be more narrowly 

focused. 

And third, Mr. Speaker, I may say 

things on the floor that people disagree 

with, but I do save my almost ridiculous statements for off the floor and 

not the floor of the House. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I urge 

my colleagues to join me in supporting 

this important legislation, and 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. 897. 

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

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

MILLE LACS LAKE FREEDOM TO 

FISH ACT OF 2012 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 5797) to amend title 46, 

United States Code, with respect to 

Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, and for 

other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5797 

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 ‘‘Mille Lacs Lake 

Freedom To Fish Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. MILLE LACS LAKE, MINNESOTA. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the owner or operator of a vessel operating on 

Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, shall not, with respect to such vessel, be subject to any Federal 

requirement under subtitle II of title 46, United 

States Code, relating to licensing or vessel inspection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Minnesota (Mr. CRAVAACK) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. LARSEN) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Minnesota. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 

5797. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself as much time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, in March 2010, the U.S. 

Coast Guard ruled that Mille Lacs 

Lake was a federally navigable body of 

water based on historical interstate 

commerce. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard justified their actions by using a U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers determination from 

1981 that said because lumberjacks in 

the 1800s floated logs on Mille Lacs 

Lake and down the Rum River, Mille 

Lacs Lake should now be made a federally navigable water body. Currently, 

the Rum River is dammed in three 

places, and the same Corps of Engineers report said that the dams prohibit through navigation. In addition, 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5607 

two previous Army Corps determinations in 1931 and 1974 also considered 

the river nonnavigable. 

I would like to submit the U.S. Coast 

Guard determination for the RECORD. 

MEMORANDUM

From: D. L. Nichols, CAPT, USCG, CGD 

Eight (dl). 

To: S. L. Hudson, CAPT, USCG, CG Sector 

Upper Mississippi River (s). 

Subj: Navigability Determination for Mille 

Lacs Lake, Minnesota. 

Ref: (a) 33 C.F.R. §2.36; (b) 33 C.F.R. 

§3.40–1; (c) 33 C.F.R. §3.45–1. 

1. For the purpose of determining its jurisdictional authority, the Coast Guard has determined that Mille Lacs Lake is a ‘‘navigable waterway of the United States.’’ 

2. The geographic boundary between the 

Eighth Coast Guard District and the Ninth 

Coast Guard District currently runs through 

Mille Lacs Lake. This navigability determination is for the entirety of Mille Lacs 

Lake. The Ninth District Legal Staff has reviewed and agrees with this determination. 

3. No federal statute addresses the navigability of Mille Lacs Lake, and no federal 

court has determined the navigability of the 

waterway. Furthermore, Mille Lacs Lake is 

not subject to tidal influence. This navigability determination is based on the historical use of the waterway. Specifically, Mille 

Lacs Lake has been used, in connection with 

other waters, as a highway for substantial 

interstate or foreign commerce. 

4. Navigability determinations are administrative findings based on the criteria set 

forth in 33 C.F.R. 2.36. The precise definitions 

of ‘‘navigable waters of the United States’’ 

and ‘‘navigability’’ are dependent ultimately 

on judicial interpretation and cannot be 

made conclusively by administrative agencies. 

5. This opinion solely represents the opinion of the Coast Guard as to the extent of its 

own jurisdiction to enforce laws and regulations, and does not represent an opinion as 

to the extent of the jurisdiction of the 

United States or any of its agencies. 

MEMORANDUM

From: CGD Eight. 

To: File. 

Subj: Legal Support for Navigability Determination for Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota. 

Ref: (a) CGD Eight (dl) memo of 3 March 2010, 

Navigability Determination for Mille Lacs 

Lake, Minnesota; (b) 33 C.F.R. §2.36; (c) 33 

C.F.R. §3.40–1; (d) 33 C.F.R. §3.45–1. 

1. Purpose. This memorandum documents 

the legal basis for the Coast Guard’s determination of navigability in ref (a). 

2. Discussion. 

a. Internal waterways of the United States 

not subject to tidal influence are ‘‘navigable 

waters of the United States’’ if they ‘‘[a]re or 

have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection 

with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage.’’ 33 C.F.R. 

§2.36(a)(3)(i)(emphasis added). The test is one 

of historic navigability. U.S. v. Harrell, 926 

F.2d 1036 (11th Cir. 1991). In 1921 the Supreme 

Court discussed the issue of obstructions by 

stating that a waterway ‘‘capable of carrying 

commerce among the states is within the 

power of Congress to preserve for purposes of 

future transportation, even though it . . . be 

incapable of such use according to present 

methods, either by reason of changed conditions or because of artificial obstructions.’’ 

Economy Light & Power Co. v. U.S., 256 U.S. 

113, 122 (1921); see also U.S. v. Appalachian 

Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 408 (‘‘When once 

found navigable, a waterway remains so.’’). 

When logs are floated on a waterway in 

interstate commerce, the waterway is a 

highway for interstate commerce. See id. at 

405; Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. Federal 

Power commission, 147 F.2d 743 (7th Cir. 1945); 

United States v. Underwood, 344 F. Supp. 486, 

490 (M.D. Fla. 1972). 

B. In April 1981 the ACOE conducted an 

historical analysis of commerce on Mille 

Lacs Lake and the Run River in Minnesota. 

See encl. (1). Historical accounts in the document reveal a history of interstate commerce on Mille Lacs Lake. Specifically, 

Mille Lacs Lake was ‘‘used in the transportation of logs’’ from 1848 to 1904, and evidence shows that at least a portion of the 

logs floated were transported to markets 

outside of the state. Encl (1) at 5. 

3. Conclusion. Mille Lacs Lake has been 

used in the past as a highway for interstate 

commerce. The Coast Guard thus determines 

that Mille Lacs Lake is a ‘‘navigable water 

of the United States’’ and the Coast Guard 

may properly enforce applicable federal law 

on this waterway. 

Enclosure: Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) memo of 2 April 1981: Navigability 

Determination for Mille Lacs Lake and Rum 

River, Minnesota 

Now the U.S. Coast Guard is forcing 

all Mille Lacs Lake fishing guides to 

spend time and money to obtain a Federal boating license. This license and 

associated costs can run well over 

$2,000, and according to testimony by 

the U.S. Coast Guard in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

they have to travel to Toledo, Ohio, or 

St. Louis, Missouri, in order to apply 

for these licenses in person and to take 

the tests. 

This new U.S. Coast Guard regulation is killing jobs by making it impractical for some fishing guides to 

even stay in business and making it 

even more expensive for tourists to 

hire their services. 

The Mille Lacs Lake Freedom to Fish 

Act removes this burdensome, administrative overreach from the U.S. Coast 

Guard and restores to the State of Minnesota the original authority to permit 

and inspect vessels. 

I truly appreciate all the Coast 

Guard does, I truly do. But the State of 

Minnesota already patrols Mille Lacs 

Lake quite well and the Coast Guard’s 

authority over the lake is an unwanted 

intrusion. It’s duplicative, and it’s currently nonexistent. This would be a 

new area of jurisdiction for the Coast 

Guard requiring additional assets and 

manpower. 

The State has rules and inspection 

procedures in place to keep its residents safe and has been doing so for as 

long as anybody can remember. The 

State is perfectly capable of enforcing 

boating laws on Mille Lacs Lake, and 

ultimately Mille Lacs Lake belongs to 

Minnesotans and should not be controlled by the Federal Government. 

We heard from the U.S. Coast Guard 

on the issue in a Coast Guard Subcommittee hearing on May 24, 2011. 

Rear Admiral Kevin Cook and Deputy 

JAG Calvin Lederer testified about the 

burden this would impose on Minnesota 

fishing guides. Additionally, they were 

unable to provide adequate justification for the navigability determination 

beyond the Army Corps report. 

My legislation would stop fishing 

guides from being forced to spend over 

$2,000 on obtaining a fishing license 

they simply just don’t need. Ultimately, it will allow Minnesotans to 

focus on what is most important—enjoying one of Minnesota’s most beautiful lakes. 

This has been fully vetted by the 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and National 

Association of State Boating Law Administrators. This legislation is also 

supported by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, fishing 

guides and resort owners, Minnesota 

Anglers for Habitat and Minnesota 

Outdoor Heritage Alliance. 

I would like to submit for the 

RECORD a letter of support from the 

Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance. 

MINNESOTA OUTDOOR

HERITAGE ALLIANCE, 

June 31, 2012. 

REPRESENTATIVE CRAVAACK: As president 

of the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance 

(MOHA), I am always interested in legislation that preserves our constitutional right 

to hunt and fish, improves sportsmen recruitment and retention or increases the 

economic viability of these pursuits for Minnesota’s sportsmen and women. Because of 

these organizational goals, I am submitting 

this letter in favor of the Mille Lacs Freedom to Fish (HR 5797) legislation. Since 

many Minnesota guides are small, family 

owned concerns that have been in business 

for many years, additional regulations and 

fees are not only unnecessary but also cost 

prohibitive and dangerous to our time honored way of guiding and fishing. Moving this 

legislation forward will address these concerns and update the laws in a way that is 

not only safe but beneficial for our fishing 

industry and our fishing license holders. 

Sincerely, 

TIM SPRECK, 

MOHA President. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR also introduced 

companion legislation that has been 

cosponsored by Senator FRANKEN. In 

the committee markup, Representative 

TIM WALZ and Ranking Member 

RAHALL lent their support as well, 

making this truly a bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation. 

I’d like to thank Geoff Gosselin and 

John Rayfield of the Coast Guard Subcommittee staff for their working with 

me on the language of this amendment, 

as well as Tom Dillon from legislative 

counsel. I would also like to thank Joel 

Amato, the chief boiler inspector from 

the Minnesota Department of Labor 

and Industry for providing his guidance 

and expertise, as well as Mr. Kim 

Elverum from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and George 

Nitti of Nitti’s Hunters Point Resort. 

Although the text of this bill is 

short, a lot of work went into making 

sure that this accomplishes the goals 

of restoring jurisdiction to Minnesota. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself as much time 

as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5797 exempts the 

owners and operators of small passenger vessels operating on Mille Lacs 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
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