On the recordDecember 8, 2011
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward, and I believe it will help provide the proper amount of interagency communication with the EPA when they go to write air quality standards for particulate matter. The legislation being considered today excludes nuisance dust from the EPA regulatory net, but the bill provides an exemption if the EPA determines that the economic benefits of regulating dust outweigh the cost. My amendment would simply direct the EPA to consult with the Department of Agriculture in making this determination. As a member of the Ag Committee, I've heard testimony from both the Secretary of Agriculture and the EPA Administrator on how their respective agencies propose and write regulations. A problem that became apparent to me is that the two agencies don't even seem to communicate. Neither agency could give me a sufficient explanation of the protocol for interagency communication between the EPA and the USDA. Their responses were bureaucratic and vague. I find this troubling because if you ask the farmers and ranchers in my Arkansas district about the greatest threat to their operations, they always respond with three letters: EPA. I don't think their response would be the same if both agencies worked together more often. {time} 1240 Perhaps the best example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing occurred this past summer when the President was in his home State of Illinois for a town hall event.…





