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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
