EPA Policies
Floor Speech
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak about Regina McCarthy's nomination but not about the nominee or her qualifications. Rather, I will highlight a few concerns I have with the EPA and the burdens being placed on those in rural areas and agriculture because of EPA actions.
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of joining President Obama for lunch. While the purpose of the lunch was to discuss health care reform, I took the opportunity to bring up a few concerns I have with EPA and agriculture. In particular, I raised four issues where EPA policies are causing tremendous concern and are burdening family farmers. The issues I raised to the President are indirect land use attributed to biofuels; second, fugitive dust; three, greenhouse gases and livestock producers; and, four, point source pollution permits.
Since that meeting with the President, I have had follow-on meetings with Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and also the President's legislative staff. They heard me out. They seemed sympathetic to the concerns I raised. However, I am not sure the message is being relayed to the EPA bureaucrats.
The first issue pertains to a component of the new Renewable Fuels Standard that requires various biofuels to meet specified lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reductions. The law specifies that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significant indirect emissions from indirect land use.
In the proposed rule changes released by EPA last week, they rely on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions to penalize U.S. biofuels for so-called indirect land-use changes. The fact is, measuring indirect emissions of greenhouse gases is far from a perfect science. There is a great deal of complexity and uncertainty surrounding this issue. Because of this uncertainty, the EPA has committed to an open and transparent review by the public.
The EPA compiled a system of models to analyze land-use impacts of U.S. biofuels policies. They have indicated that these models have been peer reviewed and that they stand up to scientific scrutiny. That is true for the models independently, but--and a big but--it is not true for the way the EPA has overlaid and integrated their models. In addition, the models are not publicly accessible. There is inadequate data in how the models and data have integrated.
As it stands, stakeholders are unable to replicate the EPA's results. So this process is neither open nor is it transparent.
Under the EPA's analysis, ethanol produced from corn reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent compared to gasoline. However, if you remove the murky science of emissions from indirect land-use changes, corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 61 percent compared to the gasoline. So one can see that sound science plays a very important role in whether ethanol is more environmentally positive or less environmentally positive.
The EPA's models conclude that international land use contributes more in greenhouse gases than the entire direct emissions of ethanol production and use--from the growing of their crops, the production of ethanol at the refinery, up to and including tailpipe emissions. The ripple effects are greater than the direct effects. Wouldn't you think you ought to take more into consideration for the direct effects? The fact is, the model the EPA has cobbled together to measure indirect land use is far from scientific. It is more like a guess.
The rule indicates that itself by including the word ``uncertainty.'' Understand, this is an EPA rule that talks about the science of indirect land-use calculation, and it uses the word ``uncertainty'' more than 60 times.
Even larger in this debate is the role of common sense. It defies logic that the EPA would try to blame a farmer in my State of Iowa for the actions of farmers or developers in Brazil. Do they think Brazilians are waiting to see what I am going to plant on my farm, for instance, before they plant their crops in Brazil? It does not pass the commonsense test. The facts do not support it either.
During the past 5 years, when biodiesel and ethanol production in the United States ramped up, Brazilian soybean acres decreased and corn acres remained unchanged. See, there is no relationship.
Amazon deforestation has also fallen in the past 5 years. A recent study indicated that the primary reason for land clearing was for timber production and land grabbing, followed by cattle farming, not because of ethanol production in the United States. So nowhere on the list--we are talking about a list from a study--was U.S. biofuel production.
I think this debate comes down to a few simple questions: Do we want more production of green fuels or less production? Do we want greater dependency on Iran and Venezuela for energy needs or less dependence? Do we want to increase our national security by reducing foreign dependence on energy?
I don't think the people at EPA get the big picture, and I am pretty sure they don't understand how American agriculture works. While the EPA's actions have a significant impact on the rural economy and the agriculture industry, it is clear the EPA has a lack of understanding of American agriculture. I know this to be the case regarding the indirect land use.
Margo Oge, the Director of the office in charge of this rule, admitted during a committee hearing in the House of Representatives last month that she has never been on a farm in the United States. How can regulators with such a great impact on the agricultural industry have so little understanding of the industry they are regulating? We need to encourage some commonsense thinking in EPA. So I have invited Administrator Lisa Jackson and a number of EPA officials to come to Iowa to visit a farm, to see firsthand how the agricultural industry works.
I have also invited Regina McCarthy, who should be confirmed by the Senate today. She will be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. I have also invited Margo Oge, the Director I referred to, the Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the office that wrote these regulations on indirect land-use changes.
Another issue I brought up with the President that I am concerned about is EPA's attempt to regulate particulate matter.
In 2007, the EPA published the ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' in which the EPA inappropriately opted for the administrative convenience of regulating all particles that fall within the fine PM size range the same, including dust.
Instead they should have appropriately based the regulation on particle composition.
Essentially, this rule treats dust as though it were cigarette smoke, causing the same adverse health issues.
There are no scientific studies that show this to be the fact. Controlling dust from combining soybeans, gravel roads, and feedlots is impossible.
When it comes to a rule in the EPA that you have to keep dust on your farm within the property lines of your farm, think how nonsensical that approach is. Only God determines when the wind blows and only God determines when soybeans have 13 percent moisture and they have to be harvested immediately. We cannot make decisions based on EPA rules of when the wind blows or doesn't. God makes that decision.
Compliance with the more stringent fine PM standard will be unattainable for many farmers and ranchers.
The fine PM standard is health-based and must be met at the property line of each individual operation regardless of cost.
This could essentially require farmers to sell some of their cattle, combine wet crops, or wall in their roads and driveways.
This would be a ridiculous way to regulate agriculture.
The next concern I have with the EPA is their decision not to appeal a Sixth Circuit decision which vacated an EPA rule that exempted pesticides applied under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA rule in question had exempted pesticides applied near or into waters of the United States from obtaining permits when applied in accordance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
In vacating the rule, the court issued an opinion declaring that agricultural sprayers and nozzles are point-source conveyances and that all residues and excesses of chemical pesticides that remain in water after the beneficial use is completed are ``pollutants'' under the Clean Water Act.
I share concerns of many who represent agricultural states as to how the EPA is going to implement the new permitting process without creating a burden on our farmers.
Producers could face legal liability if a permit is not issued quickly, yet the farmer needs to spray immediately.
I urge the EPA to draft a flexible rule that does not impede a producer's ability to apply pesticides and allows emergency application to be done expeditiously.
If they don't, we are going to have major problems on our farms when bugs, weeds, and disease show up.
The final issue is related to some of Senator BARRASSO's concerns with the nominee we are considering. That is, the direction the EPA is heading toward regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
While this could have wide ranging, unforeseen effects on all sorts of small businesses, I want to talk about how agriculture could be affected.
The Clean Air Act was designed for more traditional types of pollution that can have a direct negative effect on human health and the environment in relatively small quantities.
Given the emissions thresholds in the law, a family farm cattle operation, for example, could be considered an emitter just like a factory smokestack, with all the red tape and costs that entails.
And, at the end of the day, how are you going to get cows to stop passing gas?
Nancy Sutley assured me that EPA has no desire to regulate livestock emissions in this way.
However, Senator BARRASSO raises some good points about what would happen should environmental groups follow through on their threats to sue EPA to force them to regulate sources as small as family farms.
Rather than rely on EPA's assurances, I would like these questions answered before EPA goes any further down this road.
I am hoping that a visit to the heartland will help them better understand the real world implications of some of their decisions.
They owe it to the hardworking farmers and ranchers to get a better understanding of how U.S. agriculture works.
Hopefully, they will realize a little common sense will go a long way when making broad policy decisions that affect the farmers who put food on their table.
Source