SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
00–000 DTP
2001
2001
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, CREDIT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RESEARCH)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 23, JUNE 6, 9, WEATHERFORD, OK; 20, 26, 27, 2001
Serial No. 107–10
Part 1
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
LARRY COMBEST, Texas, Chairman
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
Vice Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
BOB RILEY, Alabama
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DOUG OSE, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, Mississippi
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas,
Ranking Minority Member
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
MIKE THOMPSON, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
JOE BACA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
ANÍBAL ACEVEDO-VILÁ, Puerto Rico
RON KIND, Wisconsin
RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi
Professional Staff
WILLIAM E. O'CONNER, JR., Staff Director
LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Chief Counsel
STEPHEN HATERIUS, Minority Staff Director
KEITH WILLIAMS, Communications Director
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Vice Chairman
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
DOUG OSE, California
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
ADAM K. PUTNAM, Florida
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD
Ranking Minority Member
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
DAVID PHELPS, Illinois
MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOE BACA, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
(ii)
RYAN E. WESTON, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
MAY 23, 2001
Hilliard, Hon. Earl F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, opening statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas, prepared statement
Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, prepared statement
Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement
Witnesses
Horan, Bill, president, Iowa Corn Growers Association
Prepared statement
Lincoln, John, president, New York Farm Bureau
Prepared statement
Stephenson, Robert, Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Weber, Thomas, Deputy Chief, Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
Answers to submitted questions
Willey, Wythe, president-elect, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Submitted Material
National Pork Producers, statement
Tallman, Dusty, president, National Association of Wheat Growers, statement
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JUNE 6, 2001
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood L., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, submitted statement
Hilliard, Hon. Earl F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, prepared statement
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Witnesses
Adams, Jamie Clover, secretary, Kansas Department of Agriculture, Topeka, KS; on behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
Prepared statement
Cantu, Joe, president, National Association of Resource Conservation & Development Councils, Pipe Creek, TX
Prepared statement
Cox, Craig, executive vice-president, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA
Prepared statement
Grossi, Ralph, president, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC, on behalf of the Coalition of Conservation and Environmental Organizations
Prepared statement
Hampton, Joe, president, Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association, Enid, OK, on behalf of the National Grain and Feed Association
Prepared statement
Nelson, Jeff, director of operations, Great Plains Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited Inc., Bismarck, ND, on behalf of the Sportsman Coalition
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Peterson, R. Max, executive vice-president, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC
Prepared statement
Smith, J. Read, president, National Association of Conservation Districts, St. John, WA
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
Defenders of Wildlife, statement
Environmental Working Group, statement
Native Seed Trade Association, statement
Stawick, David, Alliance for Agricultural Conservation, statement
Wildlife Management Institute, statement
JUNE 9, 2001, Weatherford, OK
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas, opening statement
Osborne, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, opening statement
Witnesses
Bowman, Eddie, president, Oklahoma Wheat Growers
Prepared statement
Conner, Richard, professor, range economics, Texas A&M University, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Dewald, Scott, Oklahoma Cattlemens Association
Prepared statement
Drake, Bob, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative
Prepared statement
Kouplen, Steve, president, Oklahoma Farm Bureau
Prepared statement
Limmer, Dan, director, South Dakota Audobon Society
Prepared statement
Lowrance, Dan, vice-president, Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts
Prepared statement
Miller, Alfred, president, Oklahoma, Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils
Wilson, Billy, past chairman, National Watershed Coalition
Prepared statement
Wulf, Ray, president, Oklahoma Farmers Union
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
National Governors Association, statement
JUNE 20, 2001
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Witnesses
Cooksie, Carolyn B., Deputy Administrator, Farm Loan Programs, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Edelman, Henry D., president and chief executive officer, Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
Prepared statement
Hague, Terry, chief executive officer, Farmers Exchange Bank, representing the American Bankers Association
Leighty, Dale, president, First National Bank of Las Animas, representing the Independent Community Bankers of America
Prepared statement
Answers to submitted questions
Lowrey, F.A., president and chief executive officer, AgFirst Farm Credit Bank, representing the Farm Credit Council
Prepared statement
Robinson, Miles, college of agricultural, environmental and natural sciences, Tuskegee University
Prepared statement
JUNE 26, 2001
Hilliard, Hon. Earl F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, opening statement
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Witnesses
Dudick, Joe, executive director, Partners for Rural America
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
English, Hon. Glenn, chief executive officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Prepared statement
Fluharty, Charles W., director, Rural Policy Research Institute, Columbia, MO
Prepared statement
Gorshing, Gary, executive director, South Western Oklahoma Development Authority, on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations and National Association of Counties
Prepared statement
Graves, David, president and chief executive officer, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Prepared statement
Hoeven, Hon. John, Governor, State of North Dakota, on behalf of the National Governors Association
Prepared statement
Stockton, Blaine, Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
Zippert, John, director, program operations, Federation of Southern Cooperatives
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
Herrera, Hank, Community Food Service Coalition, statement
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Leval, Kim Center for Rural Affairs, statement
Regional Rural Development Center, statement
Swenson, Leland, president, National Farmers Union, statement
JUNE 27, 2001
Combest, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening statement
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, prepared statement
Witnesses
Abernathy, John R., dean, College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
Prepared statement
Curl, Sam, dean and director, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Prepared statement
Hefferan, Colien, Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Extension, Education Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Prepared statement
Floyd Horn, Floyd, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
Lechtenberg, Victor, L., chair, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board, West Lafayette, IN
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Phills, Bobby, dean, School of Agriculture, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL
Prepared statement
Wolf, Terry, president, National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, Homer, IL
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
American Dietetic Association, statement
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, statement
Barcinas, Jeff D.T., statement
Cosgrove, Daniel, American Society of Plant Physiologists, statement
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(CONSERVATION PROGRAMS)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:42 p.m., in room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Present: Representatives: Moran, Thune, Osborne, Putnam, Kennedy, Hilliard, Phelps, Peterson, and Stenholm [ex officio].
Also present: Representative Kind.
Staff present: Ryan Weston, subcommittee staff director; Dave Ebersole, Anne Simmons, John Riley, and Susanna Love, assistant clerk.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research to review conversation issues will come to order.
I want to welcome the subcommittee's first of these three hearings to discuss conservation issues that must be addressed in next year's farm bill.
In the previous hearings, we have heard and learned how efficient conservation minded agricultural producers have become regarding energy. Agricultural producers are amazing caretakers of the land, as they are the original conservationists. Since the land provides them with a living year after year, who has more vested interest in taking care of it? I would dare say none.
This subcommittee has been tasked with determining what conservation measures are needed in the next farm bill. We do not intend to take the responsibility lightly. We have heard groups testify that between $6 billion and $12 billion per year may be required for commodity programs to provide an adequate safety net to producers. We are also going to hear organizations request between $3 to $8 billion per year for conservation programs. It does not take an economics degree to see that the requests for these two farm bill titles alone add up to large, and I mean large, amounts of money. Before we decide the money will solve our conservation concerns, we must diligently examine what we are doing now.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, we must review the current programs. Are they meeting the goals they were intended to reach?
Second, we must review the persons and organizations that are responsible for these programs. Are they administering the programs in an efficient and effective fashion?
Third, producers are faced with an array of regulation and conservation priorities. Do the current programs help producers comply with current regulations and will they help producers meet their future regulatory burdens in order to allow U.S. producers to remain among the most environmentally friendly in the world?
Our subcommittee members will decide how dollars can best be spent on conservation, whether it is cost-share programs, technical assistance, watershed programs or rental and easement programs or a combination of some or all of these to be determined. We will work with agricultural producer groups, sporting groups, conservation groups, agribusinesses and other interested parties to find a consensus that is feasible and responsible.
I thank you for being here. I look forward to your testimony. I apologize for the delay. But our first responsibility, as some of you have heard me say before as Members of Congress, is to cast those votes on the floor of the United States House, and that is where we have been for an hour and a half. With that apology, hopefully duly noted, I turn to my ranking member, Mr. Hilliard, for his opening comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members and distinguished guests, I am delighted that Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm have decided to write a farm bill this year. There's no question it is needed. We need to get on with the task of helping our farmers and American people.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conditions have changed since the last farm bill has been written. And many contradictions have developed, as things will over a period of time. Changes take place and we need to help direct those changes to constructive ends.
I strongly support public-private corporation that is the very basis of our farm policy. Before World War II, our government was supporting several times more strongly farmers than it is now. Further, the interplay of productive farming and environmental protection and management make for an intelligent, long lasting agriculture section in our Nation. Managing this interplay is the purpose of the farm bill. We must deal with urgent matters now. We cannot wait any longer.
I want to mention one serious problem that I find to exist in our conservation program. Our small, some underprivileged and some disadvantaged farmers, seldom participate in those type programs. And they are the ones who need them the most. I do not know all of the reasons for this, but I hope that the witnesses today will respond to that problem and suggest ways to remedy it. We have lost a great deal of the diversity in farming over the years. We have lost a large number of small farmers. This has been damaging to our society in a number of ways. We cannot afford to continue to lose small farmers on the rate that we have in the past. We displace and impoverish families that destroy the rural infrastructure of our Nation. We cannot afford to let this happen any longer. Again, let me say I support constructive conservation programs, but I think that they need to be made to work for rural people and to farmers. Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this meeting.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you Mr. Hilliard for your comments. Does the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Stenholm, have any comments he wishes to make?
Mr. STENHOLM. I just have a statement to be inserted into the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stenholm follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
I appreciate Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Hilliard holding today's hearing, and those that will follow, to review the conservation programs that fall under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture.
I have repeatedly said that we are falling behind in our commitment to helping landowners and operators protect, preserve and enhance their farms and ranches. If we compare the spending on technical and financial assistance on working lands to what we did in 1937, we'd be spending over $5 billion a year, instead of the $1 billion that we're spending today.
This subcommittee has a very difficult task before it, and I hope that the Members will consider several questions as they hear from witnesses and discuss possible actions:
How do we balance the financial assistance that is provided to working lands versus acreage that has been retired from production?
Are priority areas accomplishing their objective of concentrating financial and technical efforts and making a difference in environmental quality, or is there a need to spread our financial resources throughout the countryside, which can also provide needed conservation benefits?
Can the objectives presented by the various groups and constituencies be achieved through our current programs, or do we need to take a different path?
As I indicated earlier, this subcommittee will have some very difficult choices to make. I wish them well in this endeavor, and I look forward to working with them as they strive to complete their task.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Chair would request that other members submit their opening statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin their testimony and to ensure that we have ample time for questions.
[The prepared statements of Members follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee scheduling a hearing on this issue that is so important to landowners and conservationists, but particularly to our agricultural producers. Conservation and protecting the environment will be major goals of the next farm bill.
Farmers and ranchers are the greatest stewards of our natural resources. Through their daily efforts to supply American consumers with food and fiber, they directly and indirectly take steps to protect the quality of our water and air, maintain wildlife habitat, and preserve the land for future generations.
This year's farm bill has been predicted to be the ''greenest'' farm bill ever, strongly emphasizing conservation incentives. The task at hand is to help producers meet today's current environmental regulations, as well as to help them satisfy the environmental criteria of the future. We must address the existing conservation needs of agricultural producers, while also keeping in mind the future challenges that these operations could face. New Confined Animal Feeding Operation regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads, and preserving critical habitat for wildlife are just a few of the problems producers see on the horizon.
I believe that existing conservation programs can be used as a basis to effectively address today's problems. The Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program), Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program offer producers a variety of conservation tools and resource management options. With some changes in the current administration of these programs and targeted expansion to address pending concerns, we can continue to support producers in meeting environmental goals.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps one of the greatest needs for conservation assistance occurs on lands used in production for both crops and livestock. In the past, we have addressed resource conservation by simply setting land aside. However, conservation practices can be effective without taking ground out of production. Best Management Practices for row crops are just one example of a mutually beneficial land use that is good for the environment and good for farm income. These types of management practices should be eligible for incentives to encourage widespread use of conservation initiatives.
To address the increased public demand for and producer interest in conservation, the conservation budget for agriculture has been increased by at least $3.5 billion, with the possibility of additional spending to be considered by the agriculture committee. This increase is much-needed and welcomed by agriculture producers. However, as Chairman Combest pointed out last week, we are constrained by the total $79 billion budget increase. From this total increase must come not only conservation programs, but also programs for rural development, food and nutrition, commodity support, food safety, research, and other important Department of Agriculture functions. Therefore, it is important that conservation considerations fit within the budget realities.
The chairman has outlined the committee's intention to report a comprehensive farm bill before the August recess. This timeline sharpens our focus on the specifics of conservation options. As we begin the discussion of different approaches to conservation programs, I believe it is important to note that all the recommendations share the same end goal of providing conservation programs that work for producers and landowners and benefit the environment.
Yesterday I introduced the Conservation Enhancement Act to reauthorize four existing conservation programs, CRP, WRP, EQIP, and WHIP, for 10 years, through 2012. In addition to reauthorization, this bill provides greater flexibility to help producers address the environmental challenges confronting today's agriculture. The CEA builds on the positive results of current programs, while making the programs more useful for those who seek to participate and a better value for the taxpayer. The legislation fits budget goals for conservation spending.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the summer schedule progresses, I am optimistic that the conservation discussion can create a win-win situation for protecting the environment and helping the survival of family farms. I look forward to working together on behalf of our agriculture producers to address environmental issues through enhanced stewardship incentives like those outline in the CEA.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to have this hearing. Today's input is a good start to including conservation issues in farm bill debate.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Federal conservation programs play a critical role in sustaining a viable agricultural industry and the protection of valuable natural resources. Through voluntary participation of landowners in conservation initiatives, the task of managing natural resources and farm production becomes more attainable.
U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs are vital to the environmental restoration and protection of Florida's resources and agricultural lands. Implementation of conservation programs have brought improvements throughout Florida to the production of cow-calf operations, water quality and wildlife habitat demonstrating the healthy partnership between environmental preservation and agricultural production.
While Florida consistently ranks fifth in the Nation in net farm income with sales currently exceeding $8 billion for agriculture and its farmers and ranchers face some of the most extensive environmental challenges—Florida only received 2 percent of the Federal agricultural budget distributed through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It is critical that conservation programs are broadened and enhanced to allow greater access to farmers and ranchers representing a wide range of agricultural production across the Nation.
Specific improvements to current conservation programs include increasing enrollment in the Wetlands Reserve Program by an additional 250,000 acres; allowing the use of cattle grazing to control invasive plant species and expanding conservation practices for marginal pastureland to include isolated wetlands restoration in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; expansion of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to allow funding of Best Management Practices to address Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) requirements and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). Development of flexible program guidelines that encourage landowner participation and allow funds to be used to address water quality issues is also critical.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
State NRCS funding levels should also more accurately reflect the proportional value of statewide agricultural production to the Nation and water quality needs. Flexibility must be woven into the program to allow maximum conservation results by allowing the blending of programs on a tract of land. Providing for up-front funding for smaller and limited resources farmers should encourage participation by smaller landowners. NRCS staffing demands could be relieved by the outsourcing of technical assistance and providing block grants to States and localities. Many of these tenants aimed at greater access and flexibility for American producers to conservation programs will be included in the Resource Conservation Agreement Act that I will be introducing soon.
Building improved conservation partnerships is critical to meeting resources management challenges. Expansion and enhancement of voluntary, incentive based conservation programs are to key to reaching these goals. I look forward to working with my Colleagues toward new and creative conservation incentive programs to protect natural resources and sustain a viable agricultural industry.
Additional Florida Conservation facts:
Florida ranks seventh in the Nation in total Wetlands Reserve Program acres. Nearly 10,765 acres of wetlands have been restored and protected under the program. The loss of 465,000 agricultural acres of urban expansion is major concern to Florida.
Recent conservation highlights in the State include a dramatic decrease in nitrate levels from animal wastes, protection of 10,764 acres of wetlands, an EQIP commitment of $3 million and technical assistance provided to 5,581 producers.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I would like to invite our first panel to the table. Mr. Thomas Weber, Deputy Chief for Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Mr. Robert Stephenson, Director of Conservation and Environmental Programs, Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Weber, please begin when ready.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS WEBER, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS, NATURAL RESORCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and provide an update on the conservation programs implemented by the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Farmers want to be good stewards of the land. And our mission is to help them meet their conservation challenges, while maintaining productivity. The backlog of program requests is a testament to their interest.
Today, I want to highlight the many ways our conservation programs are making a difference. Our programs are voluntary and help farmers and ranchers deal with regulatory pressures. And the public benefits from these programs in terms of improved and protected natural resources.
In short, I believe the conservation programs are a win win for farmers and the Nation. But before I outline the programs, I want to say a word about the cornerstone of our work. The conservation technical assistance provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Everything we accomplish is contingent upon the talents and technical skills of our field staff around this country. They are trained professionals with technical tools, standards and specifications to get the job done on the land. And the partnership we have with the State and local people, including conservation districts, State conservation agencies and Resource Conservation and Development councils is important today, as it has ever been.
I want to also take a moment to emphasize that outside of the farm bill programs, the NRCS Small Watershed Program continues to serve America with flood prevention, water quality and water supply improvements and many other conservation benefits. The program remains very popular and continues to grow and produce excellent results around the country.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and other members of this subcommittee for your leadership on NRCS Water Resource Programs. Having said that, I will begin a review of the 1996 farm bill programs by highlighting another of our important water resource activities. The Wetland Reserve Program. WRP preserves, protects and restores wetlands. WRP is making a substantial contribution to the restoration of Nation's migratory bird habitat. A 1996 act authorized a total enrollment of 975,000 acres in the program. At the completion of fiscal year 2000, the program had almost reached maximum enrollment. However, the fiscal 2001 appropriations provided an additional 100,000 acres. We have several times as many acres offered than the program can enroll. It is clear WRP continues to be very popular with farmers and has strong support around the countryside.
Second, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, which provides 75 percent of the cost-share for implementing wildlife habitat practices. The program had an initial funding cap of $50 million, which was exhausted at the end of fiscal year 1999, with 1.4 million acres enrolled. For fiscal year 2000, WHIP will be funded with an additional $12.5 million from funding in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. We expect land owner interest in this program to greatly exceed funding.
Next, the Farmland Protection Program, which protects farmland from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It provides matching funds to acquire conservation easements. The program was initially funded at $35 million. These funds were exhausted in fiscal year 1998. For 2001, $17.5 million of additional funding was provided. Again, through the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000. We have received $116 million in requests for this funding.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program or EQIP, provides technical, financial and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water and related natural resources. The 1996 act authorized funding at $200 million, however, funding has varied from $174 million to $200 million, annually. The program has been extremely successful. We continue to receive three to six times the number of applications that could be approved with funding. Demand for this program remains high around the country.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would note that conservation does not just happen. It happens because all of us, including the Congress, the conservation partners and most importantly, the people living on the land work together to make it happen. As exemplified through the many programs and activities that are underway, a great deal is happening on the ground. As a result, we are all enjoying the public benefits of an improved quality of life, affordable and safe food supply, clean air and water, reduced damage from floods and other natural disasters, abundant fish and wildlife, scenic landscapes and a sustainable resource base. These benefits are critical to sustain agricultural production, economic prosperity and the very social fabric of our communities now and in the future. We are proud of our accomplishments and we look forward to working with you to build on all that has been done so far. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you. Mr. Stephenson.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. STEPHENSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to appear before you to discuss FSA's conservation programs.
The Conservation Reserve Program implemented by the Farm Service Agency is the Federal Government's single largest environmental improvement program on private lands. Today, the CRP is safeguarding millions of acres of American top soil from erosion, improving our quality, increasing wildlife habitat and protecting ground and surface water by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. Countless lakes, rivers, ponds and streams are cleaner, healthier and more useful because of the CRP.
CRP's success is accomplished through local voluntary partnerships between individuals and the Government. Instead of compelling participation, the program uses financial incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily establish viable conservation practices, such as permanent covers of grass and trees on land subject to erosion, where vegetation can improve water quality or to provide food and habitat to wildlife. Initially, the CRP emphasized reducing soil erosion. However, the public was becoming more sensitive to other environmental issues, such as the condition of streams, lakes and rivers and the need to preserve threatened wildlife species.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the 1990 farm bill, Congress broadened the program's focus and today, CRP's objectives include improving water quality, turning marginal pasture land into repairing areas, increasing wildlife habitat and other environmental goals. In 1993, total enrollment stood at 36.4 million acres, which is the maximum enrollment level. Today, enrollment stands at 33.6 million acres or about 10 percent of the crop land they reach planted in 2000, and CRP is providing rental payments to farmers and ranchers of over $1.5 billion per year.
Generally, farmers bid competitively for CRP contracts, maximizing the power of each dollar spent. Only the most environmentally sensitive cropland is accepted, while less vulnerable farmland remains in production. The result is an effort that targets the most sensitive land and helps farmers, while it keeps productive farmland growing food and fiber at a competitive cost. Environmental benefits measured in improved water, air quality and wildlife habitat have been estimated to total between $2 and $2.5 billion dollars annually. The CRP's benefits go far beyond environmental improvement. By idling highly erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland, the program also stabilizes crop prices, increases farm income, improves soil quality and helps maintain long-term productivity to the Nation's cropland.
In October 1997, FSA implemented a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The partnership between the Federal Government and the State's, CREP addresses nationally significant environmental problems by targeting CRP Program resources. CREP is working to address water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay, restore salmon habitat in the Northwest, protect New York City's water supply, enhance water quality in Illinois and Minnesota, restore the Great Lakes, improve wildlife habitat in California and North Dakota, protect water supplies for 54 communities in Missouri and restore vital estuaries in North Carolina.
For certain high priority conservation practices yielding highly desirable environmental benefits, farmers and ranchers throughout the United States may sign up at any time without waiting for an announced signup period, provided certain eligibility requirements are met. Continuous signup allows management flexibility in implementing special conservation practices on cropland. These are designed to achieve significant environmental benefits giving participants a chance to help protect and enhance wildlife habitat, improve air quality and improve the condition of America's waterways. Through mid-April 2001, 1 1/2 million acres have been enrolled under continuous sign-up practices such as filter strips, riparian buffers, contoured grass strips and grass waterways. The continuous signup effort has significantly increased the enrollment of these environmentally important practices. For example, enrollment of filter strips and riparian buffers has increased 10 fold compared with levels enrolled in the CRP prior to enactment of the 1996 farm bill.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On April 13, 2000, USDA announced new financial incentives totaling up to $350 million over 3 years for producers participating in the CRP continuous signup.
These new incentives included a signing bonus of $100 to $150 per acre. A payment equal to 40 percent of the practice installation cost, increases in maintenance rate incentives for certain practices involving tree planting, fencing or water developments and updated marginal pastureland rental rates to better reflect the market value of these lands.
FSA also implements the Emergency Conservation Program, which provides emergency cost-share funding to agricultural producers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disaster and for carrying out emergency water conservation measures during periods of severe drought.
The Pasture Recovery Program, which provides payments to reestablish permanent vegetative cover to owners and operators who have suffered pasture losses and the Debt for Nature Program for persons with FSA loans secured by real estate, who may quality for cancellation of a portion of their FSA indebtedness in exchange for a conservation contract with a term of 10, 30 or 50 years. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I'll be happy to respond to your questions.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you. Gentlemen, one of the comments that frequently come up in my town meetings in the sixth district of Oklahoma, and I suspect, occur across the country, are the comments about the backlogs in many of the conservation programs and the requests that you receive. From your perspectives, how much would it take in dollars and/or people to address the requests that both of your agencies have out there nationwide at the present time? Standing requests.
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I can give you some figures in terms of backlog. And I want to be clear, these do not include 2001 applications. In WRP, Wetland Reserve Program, our backlog is approximately $560 million. In EQIP, our backlog is approximately $1.4 billion. In Farmland Protection, our existing backlog is about $160 million. And we expect another $90 million because this year's difference between how many dollars requested and how many dollars available. It is about that number. The Wildlife Habitat Incentive is approximately $20 million. For Forestry Incentives, it's approximately $10 million. And for our Emergency Watershed Flood Plain Program, which, in essence, is for restoration of flood plains, wetlands, we have a backlog currently of about $178 million. And in the Watershed Program, Small Watershed Public Law 566 and 534, our existing backlog is approximately $1.4 billion.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Speaking of the watersheds, in particular, having worked on the rehabilitation bill last year for the small watershed rehabilitation amendments, in particular, of course, having worked on that bill with a number of my colleagues on this committee, I have seen many requests come from out in the field. Could you focus on that, in particular, for a moment or is that information available? I realize some of the things I ask may require a response later, which is fine.
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I do have that information. Currently, based on specific requests by sponsors, we have requests to do rehabilitation on 1,434 dams. The cost is estimated at $518 million. Those are current requests we have.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. And would it be possible to secure from you a copy of those requests?
Mr. WEBER. We'd be glad to provide them for the record.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Please. Thank you. What percentage of the WPR is enrolled in permanent easements or 30 year easements or cost-share agreements?
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I can give you the acreages. I don't have the percentages. But of the 1.05 million acres currently enrolled in WRP, 817,000 of those are under permanent easements. So roughly 80 plus percent. 165,000 acres are under 30 year easements. Something less than probably 7 percent. And the balance that are cost-share agreements amounts to 66,000 acres.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. How much of the cost-share are the producers responsible on the cost-share agreements?
Mr. WEBER. The cost-share agreements are 100 percent-excuse me. I don't have that on the top of my head. It is a sliding scale where permanent easements are 100 percent cost-share. 30 year easements—and I would need to get you the specific figure, but it is around 75, 80 percent. And I believe the cost-share agreements are in the 50 to 60 percent. But we can provide that for the record, specifically.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Good. Step back for a moment to the original question about the resources that are necessary. If you had those dollar amounts to work with, tell me about the personnel resources, the technical people you have. Could you fulfill the requirements that that would place upon your people in the field?
Mr. WEBER. No, Mr. Chairman. We could not. That would outstrip our ability to deliver that level of increase above the current level with the current workforce.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. What would you describe is your level of utilization now? Are your folks pretty much being fully utilized to address the needs that the resources are available for?
Mr. WEBER. My view is that our people are moving out at 110 percent. They are extremely committed, dedicated people. They work extra hours. They do what needs to be done to get the job done.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you, Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber, let me follow-up on a couple of questions that the chairman asked. Could you share with us the dollar amounts that would be needed to help clear up the backlog for the various programs?
Mr. WEBER. Yes. I quoted those a minute ago. I haven't added them up in my head. But that would be the wetland reserve figure of $569——
Mr. HILLIARD. Well, let me ask it in another manner. Are they increasing?
Mr. WEBER. They will increase, sir.
Mr. HILLIARD. The need is increasing?
Mr. WEBER. Yes. They will increase each year because the number of applications continues to exceed the available dollars. So those numbers will continue to grow.
Mr. HILLIARD. So what can be done to meet the demand?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. Well, obviously, one thing is increased funding to try to address the demand. Priority setting becomes very important in this process. To have a good, rigorous priority setting process that is fair and equitable, given limited resources.
Mr. HILLIARD. In your Forest Incentive Program, how much did the administration include in this year fiscal budget?
Mr. WEBER. I believe the administration did not include funding in that proposal for 2002 budget.
Mr. HILLIARD. And do you know why?
Mr. WEBER. I assume the decision was made that it was not a high priority with the administration.
Mr. HILLIARD. And what is your feeling, as one of the administrators?
Mr. WEBER. I think there's value added in the Forestry Incentives Program for conservation purposes, as in all of our other programs. But it is a matter of choices and setting priorities.
Mr. HILLIARD. Did you or did your office recommend that the program be continued?
Mr. WEBER. I believe so.
Mr. HILLIARD. Did you recommend an amount?
Mr. WEBER. I am drawing from memory, but I believe we recommended $6 million area, 6.2.
Mr. HILLIARD. Why was the recommendation for that amount?
Mr. WEBER. I believe that's the historical level that has been funded in the past.
Mr. HILLIARD. Do you think that there will be irreparable harm in the Forestry Program now that this money was cut out from the budget?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. I wouldn't say irreparable on a 1 year basis. Long-term, there may be. Since this money is used for forest production purposes.
Mr. HILLIARD. Will you recommend it for the next year funding?
Mr. WEBER. I would, of course, our Chief would make those recommendations from the Agency perspective. But I believe we will be looking at making some recommendations to help fund it.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. I have just a few more questions. I have a great deal of problems in Alabama, in my district, dealing with the wetlands and Endangered Species Act. Let me ask this. How does the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program interact with the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Mr. Hilliard, I want to make clear that there is no direct connection between the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and the Endangered Species Act. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is the voluntary conservation of wildlife habitat management plans and the actual practices, whereas the Endangered Species Act is more of a regulatory process. However, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is a conservation tool that a land owner can use to put in place on their land, those conservation practices that will take care of their requirements under the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. Mr. Stephenson, I have heard reports that minorities and small farmers seldom utilize Government programs, which are available. Is this true? Can you tell me why?
Mr. STEPHENSON. I know that FSA's laws, the Department, generally, we are mindful of and maintain a number of outreach programs to ensure that the entire farming community participates in the programs. We have also been criticized in the past, both FSA and the Department, generally, that we have not been as effective as we should have been. I know that we are willing, I believe, to entertain the comments and make corrective actions where we need to.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILLIARD. From your perspective, what can be done to make the program available more to those group of farmers that do not use it now? Or what can be done to increase the incentive to use the program?
Mr. STEPHENSON. I think the first step involves getting the word out as to what it is we do. I think we are pretty good about getting information out in some of the agriculture press about what it is we offer. But I know some experience in dealing with some of the tribes, for example, is, that is not as effective in getting to the tribe as some one on one contact, meeting with the tribal leadership. Same things would apply, also, with some of the minority farmers where maybe the local churches might be the best place to go. I don't think we've done maybe as good a job with that as needs be.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Stephenson, now, you do realize that some of these programs we set up specifically for minority and underprivileged farmers and small farmers. Tell me, what percentage of resources do these three groups receive of the budget?
Mr. STEPHENSON. I don't have those numbers with me. I assume that we could provide them. If we have programs that are authorized for particular groups or particular areas, then we will have data to show where those funds have gone.
Mr. HILLIARD. Is that information readily attainable?
Mr. STEPHENSON. That is a good question. I don't know.
Mr. HILLIARD. Would you check and see and let me know?
Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Stephenson, last year, USDA changed its policy in regard to continuous signup on grass strips on terraces. We have worked through Congress, as well as with the Department to return to the days in which continuous signup was a possibility. What is the status of that issue and——
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STEPHENSON. Sometime last year, I forget the exact month, we issued a directive to our field offices to comply with the 2000 appropriations bill. So that language is out there now.
Mr. MORAN. You believe that it is now possible for continuous signup of grass strips on terraces. Is that accurate?
Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, let me put it this way. I haven't heard that no one has been denied.
Mr. MORAN. I appreciate the Department, perhaps reluctantly, reaching that conclusion. It is an important one certainly at home, in my State, particularly among the wildlife interested parties. And I think it makes a lot of sense in preserving our terraces, structurally. Mr. Weber, I heard you in response to the chairman's question talk about the split in WRP between cost-share, the 30 year easement and the permanent easement. Where is the demand? If we were going to prioritize where to put additional dollars or resources between those three opportunities, what is the demand situation?
Mr. WEBER. The demand, in terms of permanent, 30 year or cost-share, by far, the demand is in the permanent easement category.
Mr. MORAN. And why is that? What is the distinction? What causes someone to prefer the permanent or what is the circumstances that create that circumstance?
Mr. WEBER. I suspect it is those areas that folks have tried to farm, but have not had great success on any kind of a continual basis, obviously, because of dealing with climate and those issues. And really haven't recouped the financial returns from farming on those areas, so they see a benefit to themselves, both from an income perspective. Because in many cases, you get the real land value for the easement, 100 percent of it, essentially.
Mr. MORAN. What is the typical situation where the 30 year easement is used?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. Thirty-year—of course, these would be dependent on the land owner's interest and goals. You may have a family where, say, the lead producer in the family is getting near retirement. They may choose to put that parcel into WRP with the idea that they want to have flexibility later on maybe for their children or a future generation to go back and have the option to farm that area or not farm it.
Mr. MORAN. Let me switch to EQIP. Is it true that there are greater demands being placed upon confined feeding operations from environmental rules and regulations?
Mr. WEBER. Absolutely.
Mr. MORAN. And do you see a role that EQIP can play or a greater role that EQIP can play in assisting those producers and the operators of those confined feeding operations in compliance through EQIP?
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Moran, I think that is an outstanding opportunity that EQIP can address. Right now, EQIP, we must provide 50 percent of the dollars to livestock operations not specifically to AFOS. But all of the tools are there, in terms of the [unintelligible] technical tools and practices, to handle the livestock waste from the rainfall onto the field and distribution systems and everything in between. So it is a tremendous tool in terms of having all of the components. And obviously, there is a limit, however, on the size of the facility in terms of waste storage facility cost-sharing, but that is one limit that does get imposed through statute.
Mr. MORAN. With the exception of the size restriction, what are the other restrictions in EQIP's ability to address the problems associated with CAPOS?
Mr. WEBER. There are no restrictions, really.
Funding and technical support are the key limits.
Mr. MORAN. I hope to talk throughout this hearing and later through the remainder of our committee's work on legislation that I have now introduced, H.R. 1938, that deals with a number of these programs. In fact, all of them. In what we think is a very common sense approach to trying to not only reauthorize the programs, increase the funding and the authorized levels, but to allow these programs, CRP, EQIP, WRP, WHIP, all to play a greater role in meeting the environmental needs of farmers and ranchers and other land owners. And a number of the items that you have mentioned are ones that we think we are utilizing this legislation to address.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would want to highlight the importance of what you said about the capacity of technical assistance. That as we, if we, in this farm bill expand authorized levels, increase programs and the nature of the programs, that your ability to deliver the service—I guess your testimony is you are at capacity. And so make sure we don't forget about the importance. And I noticed in your statement, you did not give us the opportunity to look the other direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Phelps.
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and for having this hearing of valuable input for me. Mr. Stephenson, how many counties are above 25 percent?
Mr. STEPHENSON. The number of counties that are at 25 percent and the numbers that have exceeded it?
Mr. PHELPS. Yes.
Mr. STEPHENSON. We can provide those to you.
Mr. PHELPS. OK.
Mr. STEPHENSON. It is probably in the low hundreds is just a guess, nationwide.
Mr. PHELPS. Is the acreage that will be eligible to go into CRP Wetlands Program also eligible for WRP?
Mr. WEBER. Probably.
Mr. STEPHENSON. I am told probably.
Mr. PHELPS. Probably means you have to look at it to see or——
Mr. WEBER As I understand the Federal Register Notice and statute, converted wetlands, prior converted wetlands and farm wetlands would be eligible. Both of those would be eligible, generally speaking, under WRP, as well.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PHELPS. Gentlemen, maybe both of you, maybe it's Mr. Weber's domain. One of the common frustrations of expressed when I am back in the district, talking to farmers is how complicated EQIP is. How do you think we can simplify that and why do they feel that way?
Mr. WEBER. I think we have got a handle on some of the issues that we are trying to resolve. Some of them are policy issues. Some of them are going to be statutory issues that we are going to need to have some assistance on. We have identified through a number of different outreach meetings of various groups and studies, really, the statutory issue has come down to a technical issue on carrying over dollars from one year to the next so they are not lost for conservation purposes.
The first year payment issue, where, in fact, a landowner is restricted from getting payment the first year of their contract, Mr. Hilliard, does impact negatively limited resource folks, as come out of our studies. The length of contract also affects limited resource and other communities. Currently, it is at 5 to 10 years, the statutory 5 to 10 years. And we are being told with folks needing to turn over dollars and receive their benefits that we should be looking at something less than that. We are looking at a 3 to 10 year contract term so that we can meet those concerns.
Mr. PHELPS. So the ability of the small landowners to qualify for assistance, you think, can be adjusted? Bonus points or something——
Mr. WEBER. Yes. One thing that is very unique, but very important to know about EQIP is that the priority setting process does take place—the evaluation process does take place at the local and State level. Folks can factor in and those communities can factor into those kinds of things in their evaluation process.
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you very much.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thune.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the panel. These are issues that are important in South Dakota and, of course, as we look at writing a new farm bill, conservation is going to be a very important component part of that. And we have had a number of raging debates in South Dakota over issues like wetlands, which I know you are quite aware of. And in some cases, have been able to work together to find what I think are win win solutions. One of which was this last year when we were able to create a pilot program that would allow acreage within filter strips and buffer zones to be eligible for the continuous signup program. And I think that is what we ought to be doing, is looking for ways in which we can get the wildlife community and the producer groups and everybody working together to find those win win solutions.
One of the things I would be interesting to get your reaction to what I think is a proposal that is in that vein. And that is the Conservation Security Act, which I know my staff has been working, I think, with NRCS staff and you have been working, as well, with the Senate sponsors of that legislation to try and determine what is what the estimates are as to how many producers would participate in that program and the first 5 years, the first 7 years, the first 10 years, coming up with cost estimates of the proposed program. That is something that seems to be a matter of discussion and debate and, frankly, dispute, as well, about what the program might cost.
But in my mind, it seems, at least, if we can find something—conservation programs that are voluntary, that are incentive based for our producers, that provide flexibility to local level, that aren't dictated from Washington. And also, the thing that I think is really sort of unique about the Conservation Security Act is it allows producers to continue to farm the land and they don't have to sacrifice or give up the income that they otherwise might if they had to set aside in some other conservation program. So, anyway, having said all that, I guess I am just curious to know if the Agency has run any cost estimates of that proposal.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. I am not personally aware of any specific figures. I do understand that a request came to the Office of the Chief Economist in USDA and they have run various scenarios and provided those, I believe, to the Hill. But I don't have those figures, specifically, myself.
Mr. THUNE. OK.
Mr. WEBER. And I wouldn't want to preempt the Department's work in that arena.
Mr. THUNE. Do you have any estimate about what likely participation rates might be in that sort of a program, just based on past experience?
Mr. WEBER. It's a unique stand alone identity. It is a little hard to guess. It depends on, of course, the level of incentive, is going to drive up the participation rate, depending on the levels of incentives. So it is a matter of what assumptions you put into it, frankly.
Mr. THUNE. OK. And I think that the level of incentive is connected, obviously, to the degree of detail that an individual producer would put into this plan. It is a tiered program, which if you become more comprehensive in your conservation practices, that you would benefit in a higher level, in terms of the compensation you will receive. Which, again, I think is part of the uniqueness of the concept. And that is that there is flexibility there. And I know, going into this, that it is a different of enough of approach, there are, again, some people who are going to be resistive to change and reluctant to go down that road for that reason and will probably look at more of the traditional programs and say, well, let us figure out what we can do to expand those. But I really see this as a reform oriented program and one, again, which I think draws on the best of all the various communities who would benefit, not only the producers who would benefit from additional income, but also from the environmental community, the wildlife community. Something that is very important in my State is wildlife habitat. We have a very significant recreational economic development initiative going in our State. It is called pheasant hunting. And we want to continue to see that prosper, as well. So let me just, if I might, ask one question, wrapping up. And that is, has the Agency determined what some of the cost estimates are to producers for environmental regulations like TMDLs and CAFOs and coming back to Mr. Moran's line of questioning earlier, a little bit about what some of those regulations actually cost producers?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Thune, I am happy that you asked that question because it has been a concern of NRCS's over the last couple of years as EPA has been developing the rules on both CAFO and TMDL. Currently, on the cost side, USDA is working jointly with EPA to do a cost and capability analysis. It is expected that that will be completed before December 15 of this year. In terms of the technical assistance costs, those kinds of things, we can only estimate, of course, how many folks are going to come through the door. And that will be dependent, obviously, on the regulation and the stringency of the regulation. We are estimating about 272,000 AFOs will come through the door requesting assistance. And by assistance, I am saying they will expect a plan for their operation and they will expect technical help to implement that operation or plan. We are estimating that is going to run us about two-tenths of a staff year, per. So the mathematics gets to be rather large. And the cost gets into several billion in technical assistance alone for that.
Mr. THUNE. OK. I appreciate that answer. And thank you for your testimony. I see the heavy hand of the chairman here, as getting ready to gavel me down. So I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you. Mr. Kind.
Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you for your permission to participate in this subcommittee hearing. I am not a member of the subcommittee, but rather a member of the whole committee. I do believe this is going to be a very important part of the farm bill that we are trying to put together and reauthorize this year. I do have a written statement that I would ask unanimous consent to have submitted for the record. And Mr. Weber, let me start with you. I have got a few important issues in the upper Midwest, especially in light of the recent flooding along the Mississippi River. My congressional district in Westchen, Wisconsin has more miles that border the Mississippi than any other congressional district. So we certainly appreciate the value and the importance of wetlands reserve and what that means to a nonstructural flood mitigation approach to rising waters and that. We also see the back load that we have now in applicants trying to get enrolled into WRP. There is going to be a supplemental coming up shortly. And I was wondering if your Agency is willing to submit a request for an expansion of WRP enrollees in light of the positive flood mitigation effects that that also has.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Kind. It is good to see you again. We will be working with the USDA leadership, in terms of deciding what will go forward relative to WRP. But we will need to consult with them.
Mr. KIND. We will be happy to work with you on that because I think this is an opportunity of emphasizing a very important program, a program that has been under funded. But also brings tremendous amount of a benefit, not only to wetlands protection and wildlife protection, but also the obvious effects that high water and floods have on communities. Farm communities and smaller communities that border the river. I am hoping that we are able to do something significant in the conservation portion of the farm bill. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us to be able to provide not only technical assistance, but some cash assistance to farmers that want to be good land stewards. Many of them are being turned away right now because of the inadequacy of funding. This is a way of not getting into trouble with trade agreements and WTO rules. And as Mr. Thune indicated, it is an opportunity of creating some win win situations when you consider the fact that over 30 percent of our rivers and streams and lakes are not fit for swimming or fishing or drinking purposes. There is certainly a demand, and we see that from the land owners, themselves, the producers who are trying to get into the programs. Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion in regard to technical assistance. And I believe your Agency is calculated in order to meet the demand of just technical assistance. We are going to have to have a three-fold increase in field staff over the next 5 years, which is a tall order, obviously, to fill. My question to you, Mr. Weber, is would the Agency be willing to consider the certification of third parties in order to help with the technical assistance demand that exists throughout the country?
Mr. WEBER. We currently have a policy which does allow us work with third party vendors and also organizations that certify third party vendors in terms of accepting their credentials and their technical work.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KIND. On your opinion, and how effective has that been? Is that in an area that we may consider expanding into?
Mr. WEBER. It is a bit in its infancy, frankly. It came out of the 1996 farm bill. And we have had several agreements with various professional certification groups that have developed over the last few years. But I would say the critical mass of activity working with third parties is really not matured at this point. So it is a little early to tell.
Mr. KIND. OK. And finally, before we run out of time, I know there is going to be a lot of talk, a lot of concentration and reauthorizing these programs, perhaps plussing up funding for them and that. But are your two agencies conducting or receiving some good research based scientific studies on the overall effectiveness of these programs so that we know we are getting a decent bang for the buck that we are investing in land conservation, whether it is CRP or the host of other land conservation programs out of USDA? Is this being driven by some research, at least? Some scientific study showing the overall effectiveness of these programs?
Mr. STEPHENSON. I know that there has been a number of ad hocs that he has done on CRP. Whether it is this university, that university, some of the outside groups. Interior, actually, some years ago, did some research on the effectiveness of CRP, only with respect to the threatened and endangered species. We have considered trying to come up with some type of long term substantive study on CRP. There is a fair amount of cost associated with that and a fair amount of time to come up with an objective study. But we have talked about it, generally, down at FSA and some of us would like to do that very quickly.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Weber.
Mr. WEBER. A couple things. One, we have a fairly current report from our Wildlife Management Habitat Institute that has taken a look at least at the wildlife impacts of various programs since the 1996 farm bill. I guess the biggest data source that we would look at would be the status and trends that come out of our National Resource Inventory. It is a 5-year frequency. We have tracked trends of soil erosion, agricultural land conversion, wetland conversion, et cetera, for decades. And, of course, 1997 was the last year where we generated the results, which were very revealing, in terms of the progress we are making and the challenges ahead. I think that probably forms intellectually, from a science based resource standpoint and inventory point, a good point of debate on using that information. It does come down to the State and lower levels, so you can start to analyze impacts both of programs, as well as resource impacts. For example, the 38 percent reduction in soil erosion that we have accomplished since 1985 is pretty impressive. The conversion of agricultural lands—well, conversion of all wetlands to nonagricultural purposes has dropped to less than 30,000 acres a year and even less than that, if you are talking just for agricultural purposes, conversion of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. So we have got some real trend data there. It is statistically valid. We have 800,000 sample sites around the country, so I think that would form a major piece of information.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KIND. Well, I think that is another area we would be happy to work with your respective agencies to see if we can develop some good science based studies, so we know we are getting a decent investment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Just a cursory look at your data here would indicate that roughly one-third of your applicants to the various programs are served and maybe two-thirds are not. And indicates, as I add them up here, a backlog of about $3.5 billion or something like this, to fully service everyone that wants to be involved. And we are going to have to write a bill here fairly soon. And what is your estimate as to what funding we should have for the conservation title in order to adequately take care of these programs? On an annual basis. Do you have any thought? Because we are going to, at some point, have to address that issue.
Mr. WEBER. It would be a best estimate only and it would not represent the administration.
Mr. OSBORNE. Yes.
Mr. WEBER. But I believe we have roughly—Bob mentioned $2 billion a year, alone, for CRP. So that is a current level figure. The rest of these programs come to, I think, and I am including the technical assistance in all the conservation programs here, not just the cost-share. But I believe that figure is around $1.3 billion when you add it all together. So there is $3.3 billion package right there. And then on top of that, I think you can look at the backlog. So perhaps a $5 billion figure could be a figure to talk about. Somewhere in that vicinity. Recognizing you probably won't address the whole backlog in 1 year. It is going to be a multi year kind of thing.
Mr. OSBORNE. So what you are estimating there would be $5 billion would take care of everything, plus the backlog?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. No. No.
Mr. OSBORNE. You are not. OK.
Mr. WEBER. It would be $5 billion a year.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK.
Mr. WEBER. And you would take care of the backlog over a period of probably 3 to 5 years in that process.
Mr. OSBORNE. But the backlog is included in the $5 billion?
Mr. WEBER. I think the mathematics, it would work out roughly at that. Yes.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK. Good. Well, I appreciate that because it gives me a little bit of a frame of reference as to where we are talking about here. The other thing I would like to ask you about is on the EQIP Program. I noticed that it is authorized at $200 million per year. And it kind of jumps around a little bit. We had $174 million, 1999, $174 million in 2000 and it jumps up to $220 million in 2001 and goes back to $174 million. And one of the main complaints we hear is inadequate funding. Just a lot of people wanting EQIP help don't get it. Why do we see the variation in this? Also, the WHIP Program. Looks like some years, there is no funding at all and some years, there is. So is there any reason for the variability?
Mr. WEBER. It depends on the annual appropriations, of course, that come from the farm bills. But EQIP, for example, it started out its first year, which was 1997, at a figure of—I think the figure was around $175 million, as it is shown here. There was a transition involved there. The next 2 years, 1998, 1999 and 2000, I believe were at the $174 million level total. That is everything in EQIP. Technical assistance, financial assistance, everything. And then this last year, it was appropriated at $174 million and then there was an additional $26 million added later on in the appropriations process. So this year, it is at $200 million. So that number varies depending on the appropriations annually. The same would be true of WHIP, except WHIP had the cap of a total of $50 million. The whole cap, total. So as soon as you hit $50 million, whether it is the first year or multiple years, unless Congress then increases that cap through appropriations process, then that is the limit you hit.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. OSBORNE. OK.
Mr. WEBER. The same thing is true on the WRP acreage, except it is acreage versus dollars. Caps.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK. Thank you and thank you for coming. Thank you for your testimony and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. I think it is worth noting the line of questioning you pursue is very good. While we authorize for 3 years or 5 years or 7 years at a time, the appropriators tend to re-write us every year, so to speak, as they pass their bills, which is another one of the many reasons that we need to be so thorough and methodical in our hearings, is to make the case for our friends in other parts of this building that only establish priorities. They need to be implemented. With that, we turn to Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you and thank you for your testimony. One of the questions I have is I have worked with the people at the local level on soil and water conservation districts or State level organizations, as well as your offices there. What would be your response to saying are we adding something at the Federal level that we couldn't achieve by just having a block grant down to the State level or down to the soil and water conservation districts, for them to work in their own areas on the conservation priorities that are deemed highest at the local area? What would your thoughts be on that type of a program?
Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. What you are buying for—the Federal delivery system and, of course, that is the technical people. What you are buying is you are buying a consistent set of standards. You are buying a consistent set of administrative processes. You are buying an oversight, an assessment process that looks at these programs and the implementation of these programs and the development of these programs in a consistent manner. You are buying quality control. You are buying liability insurance, so to speak. And at the same time, probably most importantly, is you are buying the partnership that works together at the local level to actually accomplish this work. The equivalent technical work force to the NRCS work force. Which is out there now in many States. The training that is provided. The technology development and dissemination that is provided through the national systems. And most of our programs are reflective of the local needs and priorities. We have tried to design them to do that. We don't try to make the decisions in Washington, by all means. We try our best, within the confines that we have to work, statutorily and otherwise, to make sure that the local folks have a say in making the decisions that they think are their priorities.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNEDY. And they speak quite highly of the partnership role that you play in the technical assistance and training that should get but I am struck by being in several meetings, for example, the Soil and Water Conservation Society held a series of hearings around the country. And as I read each region's response, you thought they were on different planets as to which of these programs they thought made the most sense. And so for us to decide up here which makes the most sense, I am not sure. And I am just struck with maybe better off, in addition to the programs we have is whether we are better off supplementing that with some block grants that maybe they could also contract back with you to the extent they needed additional services to do. But to try to, instead of us having to make the decision and guess what is best for the country as a whole, get more local flexibility and local involvement in those decisions. Not replacing NRCS, but, like, empowering them. What other ideas would you have as to how we can make sure the local people are empowered in this decision process?
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Kennedy, I would say, from my view, that we just need to do a better job of institutionalizing the local power in the decision making process. We call that locally lead in the partnership. And we have tremendous examples around the country. I think Mr. Osborne in Nebraska, you have a tremendous relationship between the natural resource districts out there and the NRCS and others in making sure that those decisions do reflect the local priorities out there. And I think we probably need to do a better job of that all over the country. I think there is flexibility to do that. We just need to make sure that that flexibility is utilized.
Mr. KENNEDY. And if we were to look at the continuous signup program, I mean, I am struck as I go around my district, that I see lots of places where that is able to be used and it is not being used. How much of that backlog would you say would be in some of the continuous signup programs portion of the backlog in CRP?
Mr. STEPHENSON. Are you referring to the technical assistance portion of——
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNEDY. I am talking about the riparian strips and all the other types of buffer strips that qualify under the continuous signup program today. If we were to say of the backlog in CRP, how much of it is the types of programs that are eligible under continuous signup versus those that would not be?
Mr. WEBER. It is a little difficult for me to answer. Continuous signup was designed to avoid long lines during signup and things like that. Because you can come in at any time and a farmer can use it as a management tool. When they need it, they can sign up. We do know that in some parts of the country, there are a backlog of farmers getting the technical assistance that is needed. There is also a backlog in some cases of the FSA employees of not being able to service them timely because they are providing loan deficiency payment service. As far as the numbers of, I don't have those with me.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Putnam.
Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How evenly distributed is your backlog? Does every State have a backlog? Does every region have a backlog? Does every soil and water conservation district have a backlog?
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Putnam, let me give you some examples. Wetland Reserve Program, it varies by State. The large numbers for Wetland Reserve Program are in Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri. And the vast majority of the other States have some, certainly smaller than that. But you do have States, like Georgia, that is zero. Hawaii is zero. Maine is zero. New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico are zero. So it does vary, geographically, based on the resource, based on the interest of the communities and the people out on the landscape and what fits their needs.
Mr. PUTNAM. Is there enough flexibility in the program for you to redistribute personnel and resources to meet the backlogs from the States that have no backlog?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. It depends on the other priorities that they are working on. For example, they could be doing AFO in those other States. It's not an easy question to ask or answer. We would need to look at all of the workload, how it is distributed and the priorities of the Agency to look at any redistribution of personnel.
Mr. PUTNAM. You said that you would require a tripling of personnel to implement AFO and TMDL restrictions, I believe.
Mr. WEBER. I didn't say that, but our estimate is it would be about 52,000 staff years over the life of doing the work.
Mr. PUTNAM. And how many staff do you have currently.
Mr. WEBER. We have a total staff right now, nationwide, of 11,500 staff years.
Mr. PUTNAM. Staff years?
Mr. WEBER. Staff years. Yes.
Mr. PUTNAM. How many people is that?
Mr. WEBER. I would say that is roughly 12,500. when you throw in people that are intermittent employment, temporary employment, et cetera.
Mr. PUTNAM. In the States that have the larger backlog, are those the States where you have chosen to pilot the private sector or other agencies for technical assistance?
Mr. WEBER. We leave that flexibility to the individual State conservationists.
Mr. PUTNAM. And in how many instances have they taken advantage of that opportunity?
Mr. WEBER. I believe, the one I am aware of that they have done some work through consultant third parties, I believe, is New York State. Now, I can't give you the specific assessment of how well that has been going. But I do know they have had a relationship for a couple of years.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PUTNAM. You have had authority to enter into agreements with the private sector for technical assistance since the 1997 bill?
Mr. WEBER. We have had authority to work with third party vendors. Yes.
Mr. PUTNAM. And you testified that it hasn't had an opportunity to reach critical mass.
Mr. WEBER. Right.
Mr. PUTNAM. But it has been in place since 1997 and there is only one State doing it. So nobody is taking advantage of the opportunity.
Mr. WEBER. I am aware of one State that has had a good, strong relationship. I can't say for sure that there aren't other States that may be utilizing third party vendor relationships. We are not paying the third party people. They are being paid by the landowners. They are certified sources of technical assistance that we work with.
Mr. PUTNAM. Let me change gears real quick. How do you define success in any of these environmental programs? How do you quantify pounds of nitrates reduced, pounds of phosphorous reduced, number of nesting pairs of endangered or threatened species increased, reductions in pollutant loads or whatever pounds of carbon sequestered. How do you define success?
Mr. WEBER. That is one of our chief problems on the CRP side because we don't know, for example, how many nesting pairs you can attribute directly to CRP versus normal fluctuations. We don't know, for example, how many tons of soil—collectively, we have numbers, but we don't know for a particular site, how much is related to CRP, how much is related to other land use practices on the farm.
Mr. PUTNAM. But you testified that you have a report that says that these programs generate $2 billion to $2 1/2 billion in benefits.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. Yes. And it is a range of numbers. And the reason it is a range because we don't have databases to go out and define every benefit we get and that is attributable to each program.
Mr. PUTNAM. So if we were to waive our wand and fully fund the number that you gave plus the backlog, you couldn't quantify the net environmental improvement to air, water or land that would be derived from that investment. Can you?
Mr. WEBER. Are you talking to me?
Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.
Mr. WEBER. Oh. We could quantify it in terms of the resource improvements that we would get on the ground.
Mr. PUTNAM. How would you be able to do that if you can't quantify what you are doing now?
Mr. WEBER. Let us say if you put in 100,000 animal waste systems. How much waste has been properly managed. What the nutrient benefits from handling it properly are to keep it out of the water. From going into the air. You can quantify those benefits. The amount of soil erosion saved, the amount of soil that doesn't get into the water or the lakes. Now, to make the next step in terms of the outcome, the outcome, is a more complex process. It is a modeling process. And the state of the state is not, at this point, a precise science. That is where we depend on NRI and other tools to help us plot the trends.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. The gentleman's time has expired. And due to the lateness of the hour, the ranking member and I would request that the panel answer two questions in writing. Number one, we would like to know how you allocate your technical resources and people among the States and within the county offices within the States. Surely there is a policy somewhere that you can draw upon for that. And question No. 2, we have discussed, in round about ways here at this hearing about potentially increasing the resources for conservation $2 1/2, $5 billion. There has been talk as much as $6 billion or $8 billion a year. I would like for you to explain, since we are fully utilizing our personnel, just how many more people we would have to have and what it would take to make that possible to be able to achieve these goals, if the money were available. And with that, gentlemen, thank you for coming and testifying today and providing your insights.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WEBER. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I would like to invite the second panel to the table. Mr. Wythe Willey, president-elect of the National Cattlemens Beef Association from Cedar Rapids, Iowa on behalf of the Livestock Coalition. Bill Horan, president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association from Rockwell City, Iowa, on behalf of the Crop Coalition. Mr. John Lincoln, president of the New York Farm Bureau, Bloomfield, New York, on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. Willey, may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF WYTHE WILLEY, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION
Mr. WILLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hilliard. As the chairman said, I am Wythe Willey. I am a farmer from eastern Iowa and I am with the National Cattleman's Beef Association, but here this afternoon to provide testimony on behalf of the National Associations representing cattle, dairy, pork, sheep, poultry, broilers, layers and turkeys, collectively referred to as the livestock sector. And also, the Alabama Farmers Federation joins with us in this prepared testimony. I would ask those folks that are in that group to stand up and to let you know they are behind me. And just quickly, without introducing them, I will proceed.
We know that the members of this committee understand better than anyone the significant economic contributions that livestock producers make to U.S. agriculture. Livestock receipts, projected to reach $100 billion annual this year, consistently average over half of total ag receipts. We are the single biggest customers for U.S. feed crop producers and the single largest expense, by far, for livestock producers is feed we purchase for our animals. Without a doubt, livestock agriculture is the engine behind value added agriculture.
In addition, we also manage more than 600 million acres of land in this country, which is another indicator of just how important this sector is in meeting the country's economic and natural resource objectives. It is our contention that the 2002 farm bill must make a major investment in helping livestock producers with conservation cost-share and incentive pay programs through voluntary, incentive-based programs. This assistance is needed to help us design, install and help manage livestock waste management systems. The financial assistance should be matched by an ample supply of public and private technical assistance. One reason for this request is simple. Livestock producers in many States face or will soon face costly environmental regulations as a result of Federal or State law designed to protect water and air quality. These regulations will come from the Clean Water Act, TMDL Program, the proposed CAFO permit requirements and the Clean Air Act.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have several specific suggestions and provisions—and requests for provisions to be included in that 2002 conservation title. Our written testimony goes into those items in some great detail. The major highlights of what we suggest are as follows.
As noted in table 1, in our written testimony before you, more than $12.2 billion is needed to address the projected 10-year costs of Federal, State and local mandatory manure management, water and air quality protection requirements. You will notice we have those broken down by species. Producers must be eligible for this assistance, regardless of the size of their operation.
A Payment Limitation Program comparable to that used in row crop Operations should be adopted. Funding for livestock waste management systems should be a national priority and addressed irrespective of other priorities that might exist for the program that is used to deliver those funds. We are going to need the joint effort of Federal and NonFederal technical assistance providers to implement these livestock provisions.
A voucher system could be developed to support the NonFederal technical assistant provider's role. These needs could be met through substantial amendments to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, or in an entirely new program. If carried out, through EQIP, EQIP should be amended to focus exclusively on soil, water and air quality issues. The current wildlife objectives supported by EQIP would be moved to an existing Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, called WHIP, making WHIP the wildlife program for working agricultural lands.
Once livestock waste management systems are installed, producers will need help with the ongoing maintenance of the systems. This could be done through EQIP or another incentive payment program. Those provisions could also work for and support the needs of row crop producers. Such an incentive program will work only if the payments are tied to real costs, according to conservation plans that are clear and accountable, while producers will have ownership of the practice and by also incurring cash or in-kind costs to implement them. The program must ensure that producers be compensated fairly relative to producers anywhere in the country.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In our opinion, the Conservation Reserve Program should place less emphasis on enrolling whole field, more emphasis on enrolling buffers and portions of fields. The number of whole fields enrolled should be substantially limited and there should be some flexibility in management of those CRP Programs.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and giving us a chance to present our testimony. This statement today reflects livestock producers deeply held committment to protecting environment, protecting water quality and managing our operations and the resources in our care responsibly. Livestock operations need help if they are to be maintained economic viability, be able to conserve natural resources for future generations and provide the environmental benefits being demanded and mandated from American agriculture. We pledge to work with you toward those goals and I will be glad to be here and answer any questions you might have.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Horan.
STATEMENT OF BILL HORAN, PRESIDENT, IOWA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. HORAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill Horan. I raise corn and soybeans in a partnership with my brother, Joe, in Rockwell City, Iowa. I am a member of the National Corn Grower's Association Board of Directors and I am testifying today on behalf of the NCGA, the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council and the National Barley Growers Association. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony.
The members of our organizations are committed to begin good stewards of the land and leaving the environment in better shape than we found it. We take responsibility for our farming activities and must do so with a keen eye towards conservation, productivity and marketing.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We support the voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs the past farm bills have created. We believe that the flexibility in the programs is essential for their widespread adoption, given local variances and conservation and water quality priorities, production, practices, climate, soil type and many other factors. These programs have demonstrated agriculture's commitment to working collaboratively with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reach our environmental goals and we believe that these voluntary programs have been successful in producing environmental benefits. Any new programs should contemplate financial assistance for conservation practices on resources and management that support production and generate environmental benefits.
As we look at broad Clean Air Act issues and regulations, we know that agriculture plays an important role in maintaining a healthy environment. All agriculture producers face the increasing regulatory burdens, whether it is local, State or Federal requirements on the management of their land. We support programs that will work with our members in utilizing conservation practices and work to maintain a healthy environment. A Conservation Environmental Incentive Payment Program could assist growers in meeting those increasing requirements. This approach recognizes an important part in adoption of conservation practices across the farming community, which is the growers need financial and technical assistance in management of their operations based on conservation principles.
Intensive resource management practices can become important as a filter strip or a buffer strip in achieving conservation goals. But these management practices or choices frequently add to the cost and risk of farming operation. These are the areas that should be included in the development of the Conservation Title of the next farm bill. Policymakers can work with growers to identify conservation practices that fit in with their management stewardship of working land. Any program modifications or enhancements must maintain flexibility for local implementation to maximize both participation and effectiveness.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding existing programs, we support continuation of the existing cost-share programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, including continuous signup, Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and others. These programs have been an excellent investment in the public and have generated significant environmental benefits, as documented by USDA. Programs that take land out of production should be managed so as not to take all farms out of production. The focus of the continuous signup should be on small areas of specific environmental value and there should be local flexibility to meet the environmental concerns facing a specific area of the country. We believe that the CRP should be fully utilized to 36.4 million acre cap and that any additional land enrolled should be the most environmentally beneficial land, utilizing the continuous signup. While the Wetland Reserve Program has generated enrollment that is expected to reach the 1,075,000 acre cap this year, as with CRP, we do not support increasing the acreage cap at this time.
Regarding the provisions of the 1996 farm bill, concerning wetlands and highly erodible land, we support maintaining the flexibility the farmers were given in the bill. NRCS has been unable to implement some of the flexibility that was granted in 1996, due to a lack of cooperation of other Federal agencies. However, we would urge that the committee to see that that that flexibility is maintained and that growers are able to utilize these provisions. Also, the implementation of wetland regulations has not been consistent across the country. And we ask the committee to encourage NRCS to implement wetland rules fairly and consistently.
In my part of the world, where I farm, Mr. Chairman, we have many wetlands due to the size of this room with very little utility. Two inches of water in them, maybe 10 days out of the year. And it brings into effect the respectable duck rule, which is no respectable duck would land in that place and build a nest and try to raise ducklings. So the idea of mitigation banking, which was brought up in the last farm bill, we thought was very useful. It was something that we could have done to take those low utility wetland spots, like I have the size of this room, mitigate those into a large, high utility wetland that actually has some benefit to wildlife. We are hoping that that can be part of the next farm bill.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, while designed to target scarce financial resources, has become a very complicated program for commodity producers to utilize. Many were understanding of the desire to consolidate programs and prioritize project areas, but of the ensuing challenge and dissatisfaction centers around who gets access to limited funds. Improvements should be made to the program to expand the flexibility and allow more producers to participate and increase the total funds available.
Each of these programs mentioned provide an integral part of the overall conservation and environmental water quality objectives. Federal farm programs provide financial resources and technical assistance to facilitate the adoption and management of conservation practices. Federal, State and local cost-share programs are essential for the greater benefit provided to these practices. Our members are engaged in farming as a livelihood and must maintain the ability to raise productive crops on their land and market crops to maximize profitability.
I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that each of our organizations are facing their own production and marketing challenges. Low commodity prices, coupled with increasing input costs, new regulatory burdens and the need to continually increase productivity have resulted in serious cost/price squeeze and low farm income.
We appreciate the opportunity the committee provided for each of us, our organizations to present specific commodity program proposals. We also appreciate the efforts of the committee to secure additional funding for agriculture in the new budget resolution. As we have each presented the committee with commodity specific proposals, we share the conservation goals outlined in this statement and the belief that the conservation title should work in conjunction with a fully funded commodity title. It is essential to use the provisions of the conservation title provide voluntary, incentive-based options for producers, but not replace or serve as a substitute for the commodity programs proposed by our organizations in earlier hearings. Producers need to be given flexibility in meeting increasing regulatory challenges, whether they are local, State or Federal requirements placed on their operations or the management of their land. The USDA technical assistance local watershed activities and cost-share programs are a proven approach to addressing environmental challenges. We support continuing this conservation commitment to help undertake conservation practices on productive farmland throughout the reorganization of the conservation title of the next farm bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.
STATEMENT OF JOHN LINCOLN, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK FARM BUREAU
Mr. LINCOLN. Thank you and good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I am John Lincoln, president of the New York Farm Bureau, and a dairy farmer from Ontario County, New York.
Increased regulatory costs at all levels, Federal, State and local, are placing a heavy burden on individual farmers and ranchers, as well as distorting the traditional structure of the industry. The unintended consequence is the inability of small and medium-sized family farms to complete in a highly charged regulatory environment.
Farm Bureau believes there is a need for a new environmental policy framework. We need to move beyond the current debate over whether the public has the right to mandate features and/or farming practices and rural landscape. If a voluntary incentive is offered for a desirable environmental outcome, farmers will overwhelm America with improved soil conservation, water quality, air quality, wildlife habitants.
In order for a Conservation Incentive Program to work well, public policy must recognize the inherent limitations that command and control regulations have in attaining desired public benefits of an environmental nature. Efficient public policy is one where the thing demanded by society is the thing that is being produced.
Farmers and ranchers can produce and market more than traditional agricultural commodities. We can also produce and market environmental benefits. Under this concept, agriculture and the Government program must come together to create an alternative market for environmental improvements and amenities that the public desires.
Farm Bureau policy supports expanded incentives to encourage voluntary improvements in the environment, expansion of the funding baseline in the commodity, specialty crops, livestock, conservation, research, trade and risk management titles. Voluntary participation and direct payment program that would comply with the green box World Trade Organization requirements and providing willing producers with additional voluntary incentives for adopting and continuing conservation practices.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our vision is to capture the opportunities and the efficiencies of providing producers with additional conservation incentives. Specifically, I would like to highlight three programs for which we would like to see new funding.
First, Farm Bureau supports a limited increase in the amount of acreage eligible to be enrolled in the CRP, with the new acreages targeted to buffer strips, filter strips, wetlands or grass waterways should be improved.
Second, the current Environmental Quality Incentives Program does not provide livestock and crop producers with the assistance needed to meet current and emerging regulatory requirements. EQIP must be reformed and funding increased. We support the following reforms to EQIP. Elimination of the language that prevents large livestock operations from being eligible for cost-share, broader third party technical authority, which would allow farmers to hire consultants to provide technical assistance, elimination of priority areas in which would allow all producers, regardless of location, to participate in the program and simplify program participation requirements.
Finally, I wish to express or support for a voluntary environmental program that provides producers with additional conservation options for adopting and continuing conservation. This approach would provide a guaranteed payment to participants who implement a voluntary management program to provide specific public benefits by creating and maintaining environmental practices. The management plan should be flexible contract designed and tailored by the participant to meet his or her goals and objectives, while also achieving the goals of the program.
We support an increase in the budget baseline of $3 billion, annually, for three conservation initiatives I have outlined. Other conservation programs supported by Farm Bureau are the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. Grazing Land Conservation Initiative is a program providing additional technical assistance through NRCS for arranging pasture management. We support the continuation of this program.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Confidentiality of USDA information has become an increasing concern and priority for farmers and ranchers. We have seen attempts by other Government agencies to secure NRCS and NASS data for regulatory purposes. There have also been attempts by non-governmental organizations to secure farm and ranch data from FSA and APHIS. Farm Bureau strongly supports establishment of statutory authority that protects the confidentiality of all the data collected by USDA on individual farms and ranches. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you. And I would like to note that the Livestock and Crop Coalition witnesses have representatives present from each of their member organizations. Therefore, if subcommittee members have a question to direct towards a particular organization within one of the coalitions, someone may be able to answer that—for that particular organization and we would simply ask that they approach the witness table to answer the question and state their name and organization for the record so that we may all know who is speaking. Gentlemen, looking at a number of the things that have gone on in conservation in this farm bill and in previous farm bills, I would like to touch on a variety of areas. One of the comments that occasionally come up in my town meetings in my small towns and particular in the countryside is that CRP has had the effect of depopulating the countryside. And that there is some occasional concern among others that a Grazing Land Initiative along the same line might have unintended consequences on the way rural America is put together. To the whole panel, I ask you, do you think there is any validity in the comment that CRP has helped to depopulate the countryside or change the social fabric? And if so, for what reason or why not?
Mr. WILLEY. Well, I think CRP has had an effect in reducing economic activity in an area that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there is a 25 percent cap in every county. So that does much of the problem at that point. I would not think the Grazing Land Initiative would have that problem. In fact, I would think a Grazing Land Initiative would bring economic activity back to the community, put that land to a higher and better conservation use and keep economic community in the area.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Some people offer the theory that CRP has been a challenge for beginning farmers and expanding farmers because it might have an effect on the price of land. And along that same argument, they pitch that a Grazing Land Initiative would have a direct impact on the price of range land out on the countryside, too. Any observations or thoughts about that from anybody on the panel?
Mr. WILLEY. Yes. And that is probably a correct observation. CRP is another use for the land, so it will raise either the land value or the rents. On the other hand, the Grazing Initiative would give more opportunities to young people because you need labor to run a grazing operation. And they would have a better advantage in that respect.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. But is it possible that we would see the first batches of land sales after the initiation of such a program increase to reflect whatever the payment would be?
Mr. WILLEY. You might have some affect on that, but frankly, I think in many rural areas, one of the real problems is the lack of economic activity, the lack of the job market, people moving away. If you can increase that economic activity in that area through a grazing and a livestock value added, I think it would be very positive effect on the community.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. There are others who say in my town meetings across the district that the way we have traditionally targeted cost-share towards conservation programs tends to encourage the producers either who in past times have not practiced good habits or discourages good producers who might be willing to do things, but because they have had a better system of practices down through the years, they don't score quite as high on these areas. I guess the question is, to the whole panel, is there any validity in that from your perspective and should, as some concepts have been bounced around in Congress in recent months, should all producers be accessible to conservation dollars without regard to prioritizing?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HORAN. The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes. There are some discouraged producers out there that have been doing conservation activities on their farms and now, almost feel penalized for it. Some of the first people that signed up for filter strips took a payment that is considerably lower than what is being paid today, not counting the bonus payments that are paid today for johnny-come-latelys, that maybe weren't quite as interested in protecting their land the way some of the first enrollees were. I would like to back up, though, your first question, Mr. Chairman, you talked about CRP depopulating, changing the social structure of the countryside. That was true a few years ago in the original whole farm CRPs. I think it is less true today. And that is why in my statement, we are more interested in targeting the more sensitive areas for CRP, not whole farm signups like we have had in the past. I have had the opportunity the last couple of years to go twice to what is called the New Frontier in Brazil and see how they are getting ready to cover us up with commodity grains down there. I think we are going to be paying for many years, it is sort of the penalty for the large set asides that we have had in the past. All that did was encourage our Brazilian farmers to expand and build infrastructure and get ready to produce more crops. So our organizations are not in favor of whole farm CRPs. If they are damaging, it does cause plywood to go up on Main Street of rural towns in this country. And we think the targeted CRP is the much wiser use of the taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Clearly, in any bill that works its way through this Congress, CRP is one of the most popular sections with membership as a whole. And literally, the success in Western Oklahoma such that it is difficult to drive up and down the roads at night trying to avoid the deer and the turkey and all the other wildlife out on the move. With that, thank you, gentlemen. I turn to the ranking member.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I have four questions for you. One, to each one of you, individually. But the first one is to the entire panel. And if you would, we will start with Mr. Willey and answer as succinctly as possible. Do your organizations have an opinion on the use of priority areas in determining where financial and technical assistance is provided? And I would like for each one of you to answer that.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WILLEY. Our priority of the livestock people would be in the area where AFO, CAFO regulations, proposed regulations, current regulations require immediate expenditure, so we would prioritize in that respect.
Mr. HORAN. Our position is that we have some difficulty in some areas with all of the money going to a particular targeted area, which leaves everyone else without funding to do projects. We need a system of prioritization for these projects. And some geographic distribution.
Mr. LINCOLN. And in my testimony and the American Farm Bureau's written statement, I only speak to the need to having bill availability to all participants. Most of these issues are not, well, they are more geographically self-priority. In New York, for example, there has been a lot of prioritization into the watersheds. The AFO, CAFO issue is not a geographic issue. It is—and many times the best places for livestock sector may not be in that particular watershed. You need to be available to all participants.
Mr. HILLIARD. And as each one of you know, under the Conservation Program, Erie County was assured of some level of funding. Each one of you seem to be against that. Am I right? If you prioritize them and if counties are left out, does that suit you?
Mr. LINCOLN. I don't think that is what we are saying at all. I mean, no. I mean, what we are saying is that fielding assistance and the technical assistance needs to be available.If I am a dairy farmer, no matter where I am located in New York, whether I am out priority, watershed or whether I am not. And I think that is what I was referring to as priorities.
Mr. HILLIARD. OK.
Mr. LINCOLN. We need to have these available. So I would include all no matter what county I am in.
Mr. HILLIARD. I understand.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HORAN. Part of the frustration is that in my case, in particular, we occasionally put terraces in. I can put terraces in whether I work through a cost-share program or do it on my own with the same contractor for the same dollars. And the reason I can is that if I just go to the contractor, tell him where I need a terrace, tell him to go build it, he will charge me the same amount. He will charge double if it goes through the cost-share program. FSA. And the reason that is, is that he has to spend too much time meeting with the technicians. He may be 20 or 30 miles across the county on another project. He has to drive back to meet with the technicians to finalize paperwork, to get approvals. Somebody is paying for that. In our particular area of the world, we could get twice as many terraces built for the same dollars if you had something like a Certified Technician that could just go out and do it and just be spot checked from time to time.
Mr. HILLIARD. Well, let me ask Mr. Willey and Mr. Lincoln the same question. There is no doubt that we have to utilize third parties to assist land owners and operators. Do you have thought about where the priorities should be between assuring that the work force and the NRCS is adequate versus relying on these third parties?
Mr. LINCOLN. If I can start out, New York was mentioned as one of the States where there has been some of that cooperation.
Mr. HILLIARD. Are you seeing results? Quick results?
Mr. LINCOLN. Yes. And favorable results. Because we were one of the first States to have to comply into the bill, the CAFO issue and we had set up a program with our Department of Environmental Conservation. So we have the certified crop advisors, certified planners. That is the only way that we could meet the needs of reaching the goals that was established in this case by our Department of Conservation. Because we just did not have enough technicians there through NRCS. But I think we need funding through NRCS and we also need the third party availability. We need both.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WILLEY. In a good part of the country, there just hasn't been enough use of independent contractors to have any idea whether they are successful or not. One problem you would have is that would have to have some time period for those people to get up to speed because in many parts of the country, I know in Iowa, we simply don't have a cauldrary of good, qualified people to just step in and start doing that work.
Mr. HILLIARD. Let me ask Mr. Lincoln a question. Have you been in a position to see any differences in cost between the NRC workers and your workers, I'm sorry, and third party workers, the certified ones?
Mr. LINCOLN. I really can't comment on that. But the additional information, I guess, on the bill, the certified, the point that was made that does take some time to develop those. The process we are using in New York is they have to actually go out to where the assistance from either NRCS or others to develop some plans and it is only after that they become certified. But it can be accomplished in a relatively short time, but no, I guess I wouldn't comment on the difference in cost.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. Let me just move to another subject for a minute. Mr. Horan, can you give us some explanation of why the Crop Coalition does not see a need to increase the acreage in WRP?
Mr. HORAN. Well, we know that we are dealing with limited resources, limited funds. And we think that there is a better target for those if we use those kinds of funds to encourage no till incentive programs to encourage different types of practices that will impact clean air, clean water faster than some of the set aside programs.
Mr. HILLIARD. Quickly, Mr. Lincoln, does the Farm Bureau have a position on the future of WRP?
Mr. LINCOLN. On the future of WRP?
Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LINCOLN. We have prioritized and with our list here of what we feel again we have been split—having conversation about the budget limitations, though our list prioritizes, that doesn't mean that we don't support the concepts on those other programs we haven't mentioned, like the——
Mr. HILLIARD. Is that the end of the list? Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. LINCOLN. Yes.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, panel. Just a question on if you look at the amount that has been put in the budget for addressing the farm bill needs and the next bill and there is the baseline number and then there is the additional dollars that are made available. And just for purposes of rounding, we will say it is about $70 billion. How much of that, in your mind, ought to be dedicated to conservation type initiatives, as opposed to my—most of you—some of you already testified in favor of changes in the farm bill that would require, obviously, additional funding for the commodity section of the program. How much would we be looking at in terms of what we ought to do for conservation?
Mr. HORAN. Well, I am not sure I am prepared to put a price tag on it. But I will tell you, as a producer, my interest would be programs that allow me to become more efficient, more productive and be better able to compete in the global economy. And an example would be being able to mitigate a small wetland the size of this room with low utility to something with high utility, then I can go ahead and fix this small spot program that is only wet maybe 10 days out of the year. And that makes me more productive, more efficient in that field. I can go right through that spot and farm it and grow something on it. That makes me more competitive in the global markets. And I would hope that policymakers would focus on the types of programs for conservation that would also help productivity. Because it is very, very competitive, as you know, in that global market.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. Understood. Any of the others care to say something?
Mr. HORAN. Well, we talked about $1.2 billion on a yearly basis. $12.2 billion over 10 years. Just off-hand, I would say about one-quarter to one-third ought to go to conservation programs.
Mr. THUNE. Good. Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. LINCOLN. Well, our number is still the $3 billion to and I, just to further expand a bit on and agree with what has been said. But I think it is an opportunity to reach out to the environmental payments, or green payments for assistance and to some of the nontraditional grow crop payments to specialty crops and then they also contribute to the environment and things like that. So I think there is an opportunity to use it and as that mechanism.
Mr. THUNE. Three billion dollars annually?
Mr. LINCOLN. Annual.
Mr. THUNE. As a follow-up to that, what do you all see as the next step in terms of conservation of the farm bill? I mean, I am looking at your testimony and, for example, the Crop Coalition made reference to contemplating financial assistance for conservation practices on resources and management that support production and generate environmental benefits. And that ties in with what you answered. You just answered your last question, Mr. Horan. And that is that you want to see things that enhance production. I think that makes a lot of sense and there are similar statement in Farm Bureau about voluntary public benefits, creating and maintain environmental practices, flexible contracts, those sorts of things. What is the next iteration of conservation of the farm bill?
Mr. HORAN. Well, I think continuation upon some of the things that we have seen successful in the past. And specifically, incentive based payments to help a producer convert and cover the risk of changing a farming practice like minimum till to no till. There is educational component. There is a financial component. There is a risk component. It would be great if the next farm bill could address some of those components and help transform our grandfathers' agriculture into a 21st century conservation agriculture.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. Anybody else care to comment or two?
Mr. LINCOLN. Two things I will comment on. The EQIP Program that we had mentioned, I think you need to make some changes there so it does better accommodate today's agriculture and the future of agriculture. On the regulatory costs is something that American agriculture, whether you are a livestock producer or a crop producer or specialty crops, it has a tremendous impact, as I mentioned in our statement on the industry. One of the one of the effects of regulations—and I operate a dairy farm. We have the next generation coming in. As it forces the industry the family farm to be larger to comply with the regulations cost per cow and things like that go down somewhat. The larger the operation there is. So I think you need to have the adequate cost-sharing programs, the technical assistance under programs like EQIP. I know in our discussion on our American Farm Bureau Board of Directors and back home in New York, I think moving towards the so-called environmental, the green payments, is another way to better serve American agriculture, the changing needs, the flexibility and also compliance as far as the WTO agreements.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Putnam.
Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lincoln, you have had a couple of long days of testimony. I will be you are ready to get back to the farm.
Mr. LINCOLN. Yes.
Mr. PUTNAM. In the discussions that American Farm Bureau went through, what is your organization's consensus on the flexibility that should be given to States, in terms of implementation of these programs, even flexibility right down to the county level? And what are some recommendations to improve that, if that is a priority of yours?
Mr. LINCOLN. I think, in fairness we have had some discussion, but we haven't had a lot. Certainly, we support the local initiative and things. But we can get back to you with a better answer to your question. And we had some discussion, but I don't want to——
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PUTNAM. Was there any discussion about whether or not funding should be based on the value of farm production, rather than the number of farms in the State?
Mr. LINCOLN. Yes. We haven't had that particular discussion, at least, at a board level. And some individuals may have had that. But not officially as an organization.
Mr. PUTNAM. As we move into the discussion about modernizing these programs and bringing agriculture into the 21st century and we talk about the social benefits that are derived from environmental stewardship, the water recharge areas and the carbon sequestration and things of that sort. How are we going to quantify those so that we can go to some of our colleagues who aren't necessarily from rural areas and aren't from agricultural areas and give them the science-based number of the social benefit that is derived from producers engaging in these techniques? Anyone.
Mr. HORAN. Well, one of the things that got us pretty excited a couple of years ago was we had a local insurance company in Iowa that had contracted with two power generating companies in Canada to sequester their carbon in Iowa cornfields. And as the discussions moved along, we were talking about a number something like $7 an acre that farmers would be paid for sequestrating that carbon. Suddenly, there were all sorts of numbers about tons of carbon that were actually being sequestered. Exactly what you are getting at. And so the last information that I read about that was the National Academy of Sciences was trying to figure out, on a cornfield that was yielding a certain number of bushels, how much carbon that actually sequestered. I think that research is being done. I think we are going to come up with some hard numbers at some point. We don't have them today. 2 years later, we are still not being paid for sequestering that carbon because we don't have those hard numbers. That would be very useful if we could get those numbers.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LINCOLN. From a Farm Bureau standpoint, I think that is very much the case. We need some research that needs to be quantified. Some better research. However, some factors may be very hard to quantify like the value of the landscape to the public and some of those more tangible things. But I think there are things we can and there is research being done. We just need to pull some of that together, quantify some of it and have, maybe, perhaps, more research in other places. Better information.
Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. WILLEY. Well, the good extent, good conservation is in the eye of the beholder. And agriculture, for one, is going to have to do a better job of educating the general public as to the progress that they have made and that they intend to make. But in particular, where we are dealing with the EQIP Program, we could point to greater compliance with current environmental regulations laws and say we have this percentage of additional compliance with the law, therefore, less pollution and more valuable use and more positive use of nutrients.
Mr. PUTNAM. What are your thoughts on leveraging Federal dollars to match programs that are already going on in the States, and I know some States are way up front on this. Florida has a pretty innovative TMDL Program that we are working on and around Lake Okeechobee. Do you think that preference should be given to States which have developed their own programs and incentives?
Mr. WILLEY. Well, our whole approach is a voluntary, incentive-based program. Where the farm owner, the land owner and/or operator have a commitment of financial commitment and stake in that particular practice. Certainly, anything that the State would do or any other local Government, would be a positive factor there. And I think that contribution ought to be encouraged and recognized.
Mr. HORAN. If there were Federal dollars available for a cost-share situation like that, I think that would be a huge driver for States to go ahead and develop a program there very quickly and take advantage of those dollars.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LINCOLN. And, again, I think, you have to look at it proposal by proposal and certainly the concept probably is something that could be taken a look at.
Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Thank you, Mr. Putnam. One last question, Mr. Willey. In your testimony, you mentioned the potential cost of upwards of $12 billion over the next 10 years to meet the mandatory standards. Food chain tends to be a situation where costs rarely go down because of World competition. Costs tend to revert back to the source. If these needs aren't addressed, what would be the impact do you think on the livestock industry in this country?
Mr. WILLEY. Well, I think that money would have to come out of the farmer's pocket.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Putnam.
Mr. PUTNAM. Based on the testimony, it sounds like it would be a whole lot cheaper just to repeal the TMDO rule than to fund all the requirements to abide by it.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. You are an exceedingly practical freshman, but sometimes, challenges are a bit great. And with that note, let me note that when you consider the money that has to be set aside to address commodity titles, when you consider the existing needs in conservation and you consider all of the other issues that we have talked about today, perhaps, perhaps, we should be lobbying more extensively on both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee. After all, we are your friends here and we understand the challenges we all face together. But to accomplish what we need to accomplish, we have to pull everyone along with us. And with that, I thank the witnesses for being very tolerant of today's schedule on the floor of the House. And I thank my colleagues, also, and wish to observe that without objection, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional information and supplemental written responses from witnesses to any questions posed by a member of the panel. This hearing of the Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research subcommittee is adjourned.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Whereupon, at 5:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of John Lincoln
Mr. Chairman, I am John Lincoln, President of the New York Farm Bureau, and a dairy farmer from Ontario County, New York. AFBF represents more than 5 million member families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Farm Bureau is looking for, and will be supportive of, the right mix of public policy tools that will enable farmers and ranchers to improve net farm income, enhance their economic opportunity, preserve their property rights and enhance the Nation's environment.
America depends on a strong and sound agricultural policy. American agriculture provides food security for this nation and much of the rest of the world. We contribute to our national economic security by running a positive balance of trade and generating off-farm employment. We also contribute to the world's environmental security. In this specific area we can, with the proper incentives, do much more.
Increased regulatory costs on all levels—Federal, State and local—are placing a heavy burden on individual farmers and ranchers as well as distorting the traditional structure of our industry. Farmers and ranchers understand the importance of protecting the environment. Their livelihood depends on it. However, the expenses that are incurred to meet compliance are taking a heavy toll on farm incomes and forcing farmers and ranchers to spread the cost of increased regulation over more units of production. The unintended consequence is the inability of small- and medium-sized family farms to compete in a highly charged regulatory environment.
Farm Bureau believes there is a need for a new environmental policy framework. We need to move beyond the current debate over whether the public has the right to mandate features and/or farming practices in the rural landscape. We are at that proverbial fork in the road and have concluded that mandates are not only counter-productive but more important, inefficient. Our members understand that there is need for a different set of tools and farm policy options. We believe market forces and government programs can work together to enhance the Nation's productivity and environmental objectives.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. farmers and ranchers have historically shown that if either market forces or government support prices provide sufficient incentives, such as $3.00 per bushel corn or $4.00 per bushel wheat, we can produce an abundant supply of these commodities. Similarly, if a voluntary incentive is offered for a desirable environmental outcome, farmers will overwhelm America with improved soil conservation, water quality, air quality and wildlife habitats.
In order for a conservation incentive payment program to work well, public policy must recognize the inherent limitations that command and control regulations have in attaining desired public benefits of an environmental nature. Efficient public policy is one where the thing demanded by society is the thing that is being produced.
There is little doubt that we have made strides in improving our environment over the last three decades. By nearly every measure our environment and natural resources are in much better shape than at any time in our lifetimes. As the demand for environmental enhancements increase it is important that we examine the public policy tools that we have at our disposal and determine whether they are appropriate or not. The command and control nature of many of the first generation environmental statutes were enacted for the problems of the 1960's and 1970's. The programs were, and continue to be very controversial and adversarial in nature. Compliance was expensive and inefficient but comparatively easy to measure.
In addition to building on the gains of the last three decades, the public now desires open space, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, diverse landscapes and recreational activities. These are clearly more ephemeral policy goals that require a more delicate and site-specific policy approach that necessitates the cooperation of the landowner more than ever before. The existing environmental policy framework is not equipped to function in a way that is most efficient in achieving the policy objectives we are faced with in the future. Public policy, and in this case, the conservation title should move beyond preventing bad things to policies of promoting good things. Command and control mechanisms do not provide an attractive incentive for farmers and ranchers to produce the things that the public wants. A new, more efficient and effective approach should be developed to assist farmers and ranchers in providing the public with what it wants. It should be voluntary, provide sufficient economic incentive and clearly define the benefits that society at large derives from agriculture.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Farmers and ranchers can produce and market more than traditional agricultural commodities. We can also produce and market environmental benefits. Under this concept, agriculture and the government program must come together to create an alternative market for environmental improvements or amenities that the public desires. Such environmental features would likely include erosion control and improved water quality, ecological services such as nutrient filters and carbon sinks, habitat, bio-diverse landscapes, recreational opportunities, and rural amenities, such as visual aesthetics and scenic vistas, to name a few.
Farm Bureau policy states that the next farm bill should:
Continue to improve the environment through expanded incentives to encourage voluntary soil conservation, water and air quality programs, and advance technological and biotechnological procedures that are based on sound science and are economically feasible;
Improve the quality of rural life and increase rural economic development;
Provide for an expansion of the funding baseline in the commodity, specialty crops, livestock, conservation, research, trade and risk management titles;
Continue voluntary participation in a direct payment program that would comply with the green box World Trade Organization requirements; and
Provide willing producers with additional voluntary incentives for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.
Bridging the gap between where we are now and where we want to be in the future requires an expanded public investment in agriculture. Part of this public investment directly positions agriculture for renewed growth. Increases in conservation incentives are needed to lay the base today for responsible growth in our industry. We encourage this Committee to consider the following principles as we work together to find the right mix of policy options that will enable farmers and ranchers the opportunity to step up to this new challenge:
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allow the market to determine the value for these new commodities;
Provide voluntary participants with an annual guaranteed incentive payment, not simply a cost-share or ad hoc payment;
Provide incentives for both implementation and maintenance of conservation and environmental practices - something that has been lacking in the past;
Make incentives available to ALL producers, livestock, poultry, aquaculture, timber, fruit and vegetable producers;
Provide incentives that conform to WTO green box requirements;
Do not replace or disturb any existing or future payment program unless participants choose to opt out of traditional farm programs in return for a higher level of incentives;
Provide program participants the opportunity to improve the quality of rural life and increase rural economic development by providing a stable and diverse presence for agriculture; and
Allow confidential conservation plans to provide an improved level of assurance and accountability of the conservation efforts undertaken by the program participants.
Our vision is to capture the opportunity and efficiencies of providing producers with additional conservation incentives for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.
CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Under the CRP producers bid to enroll environmentally sensitive lands into the reserve during signup periods, retiring it from production for 10 years. Successful bidders receive cost-sharing and technical assistance to plant conserving vegetation and annual rental payments.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Twenty-one signups have been held between 1986 and 2000. There are currently 33.4 million acres enrolled out of the maximum 36.4 million acres provided for in legislation. USDA estimates that average erosion rates on enrolled acres are reduced from 21 tons per acre to less than 2 tons per acre per year.
CRP: (a) provides incentives for reduction in soil erosion, enhancement of water and soil quality, and additional wildlife habitat; and (b) provides a steady income to participants who enroll in the program. In order to ensure that rural and agricultural infrastructure is not hurt by even a slight increase in CRP acreage, we continue to oppose more than 25 percent of the county acreage being included in a CRP contract, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs and all experimental pilot projects.
Farm Bureau supports a limited increase in the amount of acreage eligible to be enrolled in the CRP with new acreage targeted toward buffer strips, filter strips, wetlands, or grass waterways should be approved.
Reform Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EQIP does not provide livestock and crop producers the assistance needed to meet current and emerging regulatory requirements. EQIP must be reformed and funding increased in order to assist producers with the cost of meeting Federal, state and local environmental regulations. We support EQIP authority with the following improvements.
We believe that EQIP payments should be available to all livestock producers, no matter their size, and total payments should be limited in a manner comparable to that for row crop producers. The current program does not make EQIP assistance available for the structural components of livestock waste management systems for large livestock operations, defined in most states to be those with more than 1,000 animal units. Excluding large livestock operations from structural assistance ensures that EQIP will never be able to attain its water quality and environmental objectives. This exclusion is entirely inconsistent with a program designed to improve agriculture's environmental performance.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EQIP should be explicitly amended to direct the Secretary to allocate EQIP dollars to producers for the purpose of helping them meet Federal, state and local mandatory manure management and water and air quality protection requirements. The program should provide the proper assurances that EQIP will result in the highest value possible for the tax dollars spent. But the priority setting approaches must be flexible and allow the Secretary to address all of agricultures' top conservation needs. Some priorities will be best addressed through the adoption of certain conservation practices over a large area of a state or the country. Many of these needs most certainly will not be defined by a geographic scope like a 14 digit watershed. In other situations, producers in a defined geographic area like a watershed will be in need of priority attention. EQIP must be amended to ensure that it can address all of these situations. Certain practices or needs could be of such national or statewide priority that they would be eligible for funding without going through a local bidding process. For example, these practices could include such things as:
Helping producers build, plan and operate nutrient and manure management measures and systems.
Implementing pesticide best management practices (BMPs) known to improve water quality.
EQIP should provide for contracts involving single practices or multiple practices, and contracts that range in length from one to 10 years as appropriate to the conservation issue that needs to be addressed. Existing law provides for 5–10 year contacts.
Avoid any unnecessary duplication in the EQIP application process and conservation planning process so as to minimize the administrative burden and duplication, and diversion of funds from producers to administrative activities.
Appropriate emphasis must be given in EQIP to air quality goals and practices.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CCC statutory authority currently requires that EQIP payments to a producer cannot begin until the year after a contract is signed. This provision needs to be changed to permit payments to producers in the year a contract is signed.
Program must be amended to ensure that funds can be provided for:
Helping producers improve and computerize their farm decision support environmental data and record-keeping systems;
Helping producers plan and implement agricultural BMPs designed to improve air quality.
Amendments are needed to ensure that producers will be able to get the technical assistance they need to successfully participate in the program.
In addition to ensuring that there USDA-based technical assistance is funded, producers must be able to access and use private sector or non-Federal conservation technical assistance from ''certified'' providers like Certified Crop Advisors, Independent Crop Consultants, conservation district professionals, other qualified persons).
A voucher system or some similar system needs to be established for producers to use to secure non-Federal EQIP planning assistance.
The program should in no way impede producers that want to use their own funds to purchase ''certified'' planning assistance, and the funds producers use for that purpose should apply to their cost share contribution.
These non-Federal technical assistance provisions must be addressed in detail as part of the formal EQIP rulemaking.
Establish a USDA-based program to pay producers or give them vouchers to purchase, from private sector organizations that know and understand agriculture, a certified third party assessment of environmental performance. Again, this must be part of the EQIP formal rulemaking.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EQIP should maintain current authority to provide funding to all producers including crops, livestock, fruits and vegetables. It would provide 50 percent of funding to livestock and 50 percent to crops.
Livestock producers in several states face, or will soon face, costly environmental regulations as a result of state or Federal law designed to protect water quality. Crop producers in many states are preparing to deal with similar environmental requirements. The Federal regulations under the Clean Water Act include the Total Maximum Daily Load Program (TMDLs) and the new Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) permit requirements. Federal regulators are also exploring the possibility of expanding Federal regulation of agriculture under the Clean Air Act. Producers need now, more than ever, Federal financial and technical assistance to help them meet these challenges. In many instances, the new Federal or state requirements will be very costly for producers.
Implementation costs for these types of regulations are significant. NRCS estimates that preparation of a comprehensive nutrient management plan could cost $5,000. Installation of a new pork manure management system would run $50,000 to $100,000 and a nutrient management plan and implementation incentives for a 500-acre corn and soybean operation would require $1,500 to $3,000 per year.
Implementation of a program to provide financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to help them execute unfunded state and Federal regulatory mandates must be approved.
EQIP (a) should be readily accepted since producers are familiar with the EQIP program; (b) would be available to all crop and livestock producers; and (c) would provide compliance assistance to farmers and ranchers with implementation of Federal, state and local environmental laws.
(C) Environmental Incentive Payments
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We support a voluntary environmental program that provides producers with additional conservation options for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat. This would be a guaranteed payment to participants who implement a voluntary management plan to provide specific public benefits by creating and maintaining environmental practices. The management plan would be a flexible contract, designed and tailored by the participant to meet his or her goals and objectives while also achieving the goals of the program.
We support allowing farmers and ranchers the opportunity to voluntarily participate in a program that provides the public with the environmental features they actually want in agricultural areas. It would also provide participants with an alternative source of income that would, in some cases, provide an additional safety net. The proposal is based on the concept that farmers and ranchers can produce and market more than traditional agricultural commodities. They can also produce and market what might be called public environmental benefits. Not only would agriculture be able to produce and market food and fiber, it would also be able to produce and market environmental amenities that the public desires.
Examples include erosion control and improved water quality, ecological services such as nutrient filters and carbon sinks, habitat, bio-diverse landscapes and recreational opportunities, and rural amenities such as visual aesthetics and scenic vistas.
We believe participants should be given the opportunity and flexibility to develop a management plan that provides environmental benefits but, without land retirements or easements, to provide environmental benefits in return for a payment. The length of the contract period would be flexible and tailored to meet the participant's situation. Practices covered under such a proposal could range from accepted good farming practices already implemented on the farm to establishment of a comprehensive environmental management plan.
A management plan and any information resulting from it would be confidential, and the property of the producer. If any incidental or minor regulatory noncompliance within the scope of the management plan is discovered in the course of plan development, the producer should have a grace period of one year to get in compliance without being liable for penalties. Producers who are in good faith compliance with their management plans, but through no fault of their own become non-compliant with environmental regulations, would have one year to correct the noncompliance without being liable for civil or criminal penalties.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This concept would provide (a) incentives to all agricultural producers; (b) participants with an annual guaranteed per acre incentive payment; (c) incentives for not only implementation, but maintenance of conservation and environmental practices; and (d) an opportunity to provide family farms additional financial assistance beyond current programs.
Implementation of an environmental incentives program should be adopted.
FUNDING FOR CONSERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
All three of the conservation initiatives would be classified as green box and increase government expenditures $3 billion annually.
Other Conservation Programs
Other conservation programs supported by Farm Bureau are the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) and the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI). These programs were authorized in the 1996 farm bill and are funded through an annual appropriation.
FPP—Farm Bureau supports funding for FPP. This program has been popular in many states. Farm Bureau does not support non-profit organization eligibility for Federal funding to carry out the acquisition of development right easements under this program. Additionally, we oppose the imposition of any farm management plan on the property. The intent of the FPP is to avoid development pressures, not dictate farming practices.
GLCI—The GLCI is a program providing additional technical assistance through NRCS for range and pasture management. We support the continuation of this program.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality of USDA information has become an increasing concern and priority for farmers and ranchers. We have seen attempts by other government agencies to secure NRCS and NASS data for regulatory purposes. There have also been attempts by non-governmental organizations to secure farm and ranch data from FSA and APHIS. Farm Bureau strongly supports establishment of statutory authority that protects the confidentiality of all data collected by USDA on individual farms and ranches.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Swampbuster. Related to wetland, our challenge has been and continues to be the construction of a coherent national policy that protects both the rights of property owners and our Nation's wetland resources. We believe such a policy exists within the amendments made to the Swampbuster Title of the 1996 farm bill. The key to success is flexibility for farmers and ranchers to modify their operations to gain needed economic efficiencies while also encouraging wetland enhancement and protection. By providing agriculture with the opportunity and flexibility to enhance both wetland resources and agricultural production we can truly have a win/win wetlands policy.
Mr. Chairman, we sincerely appreciate the opportunities to share our views on changes necessary in the next few years to inspire a healthy agricultural sector. We have attached to our testimony the Farm Bureau response to the chairman's earlier questions relating to the conservation title of the farm bill.
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION TO THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE CONSERVATION TITLE
OF THE
NEXT FARM BILL
April 25, 2001
The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to respond to the committee and believes our response to the following questions will help assure the committee of the need for a strong conservation title. Agriculture is looking for, and will be supportive of, the right mix of public policy tools that will enable farmers and ranchers to improve net farm income, enhance their economic opportunity, preserve their property rights and enhance the nation's environment. American agriculture not only provides food security for this nation and much of the rest of the world, but we also contribute to the world's environmental security. In this specific area we can, with the proper incentives, do much more.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question 1(a). Is the NRCS operating the Conservation programs for which it is primarily responsible (EQIP, WRP, WHIP, FPP, Conservation of Private Grazing Land etc.) in an effective and efficient manner?
Programs, whether voluntary and incentive-based or regulatory in nature, are not self-implementing, therefore we believe there is a need for a significant increase in technical resources for timely implementation of the nation's conservation priorities. Each farm and ranch in this country needs access to information and technical assistance. Although there are NRCS resources to assist farmers both technically and monetarily, these resources are inadequate to meet agriculture's most basic needs.
Recommendation: Farm Bureau supports increased funding for voluntary incentive-based programs and NRCS technical assistance.
Question 1(b). What changes should NRCS make to its program and operating procedures?
The role of NRCS should be that of providing technical assistance and education. NRCS should not become a regulatory agency, serve in a policing capacity or be combined through any reorganization with an agency that has regulatory functions. NRCS should not negotiate or become party to any Memorandums of Agreements or Memorandums of Understanding with Federal regulatory agencies that would give NRCS the power to develop, implement, or police those agencies' regulation on agricultural lands.
Recommendation: Farm Bureau believes NRCS should not become a regulatory agency but should function as a non-regulatory mediator of environmental compliance issues with regulatory agencies, on behalf of producers.
Question 2(a). Is the FSA operating the Conservation programs for which it is primarily responsible (FSA, etc.) in an effective and efficient manner?
Recommendation: We support the current system by which FSA carries out programs in conjunction with NRCS.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question 2(b). What changes should FSA make to its program and operating procedures?
Recommendation: We continue to support funding for conservation programs being administered by FSA.
Question 3. Please list in order of priority (highest to lowest) each Conservation Program your organization supports. Please include the amount of authorized and appropriated monies your organization supports along with the amount of acres that should be allowed into each program. (All current programs and those being considered) Please include any recommended changes to these programs that could be helpful through both statutory changes and regulatory changes.
The AFBF testified before the committee on February 28, 2001, on the need for at least $12 billion of new budget baseline to adequately provide for a rewrite of the farm bill, including the conservation title. If at least $12 billion is available, then the following programs should be funded. While we have, as requested, ranked our requests, the AFBF Board has not officially taken action as to their priority. The board will consider this issue at their June meeting and will base their decision on the budget resolution conference report passed by Congress.
Overall Conservation Funding Recommendation: We support increasing conservation expenditures above current baseline levels by $3 billion annually for the above programs.
Priority #1 - Reform Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EQIP does not provide livestock and crop producers the assistance needed to meet current and emerging regulatory requirements. EQIP must be reformed and funding increased in order to assist producers with the cost of meeting Federal, state and local environmental regulations. We support EQIP authority with improvements in the program to:
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Eliminate statutory language that prevents operators of larger farms from being eligible for cost-share;
Provide broader third-party technical assistance authority, which would allow farmers to hire consultants to provide technical assistance;
Eliminate priority areas which would allow all producers regardless of location to participate in program; and
Simplify program participation requirements.
EQIP should maintain current authority to provide funding to all producers including crops, livestock, fruits and vegetables. It should continue to provide 50 percent of funding to livestock.
Livestock producers in several states face, or will soon face, costly environmental regulations as a result of state or Federal law designed to protect water quality. Crop producers in many states are preparing to deal with similar environmental requirements. The Federal regulations under the Clean Water Act include the Total Maximum Daily Load Program (TMDLs) and the new Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) permit requirements. Federal regulators are also exploring the possibility of expanding Federal regulation of agriculture under the Clean Air Act. Producers need now, more than ever, Federal financial and technical assistance to help them meet these challenges. In many instances, the new Federal or state requirements will be very costly for producers.
We support an EQIP proposal that would authorize payments to:
Help producers build, plan and operate nutrient and manure management measures and systems;
Implement pesticide best management practices (BMPs) known to improve water quality;
Help producers improve and computerize their farm decision support data and record-keeping systems;
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Help producers plan and implement agricultural BMPs designed to improve air quality; and
Ensure that producers could get private sector conservation technical assistance that meets NRCS standards and guidance with nutrient, pest and information management.
Recommendation: We support implementation of a program to provide financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to help them execute unfunded state and Federal regulatory mandates. Implementation of EQIP should be authorized at $1.25 billion annually.
Priority #2 - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Under the CRP producers bid to enroll environmentally sensitive lands into the reserve during signup periods, retiring it from production for 10 years. Successful bidders receive cost-sharing and technical assistance to plant conserving vegetation and annual rental payments.
Twenty-one signups have been held between 1986 and 2000. There are currently 33.4 million acres enrolled out of the maximum 36.4 million acres provided for in legislation. USDA estimates that average erosion rates on enrolled acres are reduced from 21 tons per acre to less than 2 tons per acre per year.
CRP: (a) provides incentives for reduction in soil erosion, enhancement of water and soil quality, and additional wildlife habitat; and (b) provides a steady income to participants who enroll in the program. In order to ensure that rural and agricultural infrastructure is not hurt by even a slight increase in CRP acreage, we continue to oppose more than 25 percent of the county acreage being included in a CRP contract, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs and all experimental pilot projects.
Recommendation: Farm Bureau supports a limited increase in the amount of acreage eligible to be enrolled in the CRP (38 million acres) with new acreage targeted toward buffer strips, filter strips, wetlands, or grass waterways. CRP funding should be authorized at 38 million acres ($500 million).
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Priority #3 - Environmental Incentive Payments
We support a voluntary environmental program that provides producers with additional conservation options for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat. This would be a guaranteed payment to participants that implement a voluntary management plan to provide specific public benefits by creating and maintaining environmental practices. The management plan would be a flexible contract, designed and tailored by the participant to meet his or her goals and objectives while also achieving the goals of the program.
We support allowing farmers and ranchers the opportunity to voluntarily participate in a program that provides the public with the environmental features they actually want in agricultural areas. It would also provide participants with an alternative source of income that would, in some cases, provide an additional safety net. The proposal is based on the concept that farmers and ranchers can produce and market more than traditional agricultural commodities. They can also produce and market what might be called public environmental benefits. Not only would agriculture be able to produce and market food and fiber, it would also be able to produce and market environmental amenities that the public desires.
Examples include erosion control and improved water quality, ecological services such as nutrient filters and carbon sinks, habitat, bio-diverse landscapes and recreational opportunities, and rural amenities—visual aesthetics and scenic vistas.
We believe participants should be given the opportunity and flexibility to develop a management plan that provides environmental benefits but, without land retirements or easements, to provide environmental benefits in return for a payment. The length of the contract period would be flexible and tailored to meet the participant's situation. Practices covered under such a proposal could range from accepted good farming practices already implemented on the farm to establishment of a comprehensive environmental management plan.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A management plan and any information resulting from it would be confidential, and the property of the producer. If any incidental or minor regulatory noncompliance within the scope of the management plan is discovered in the course of plan development, the producer should have a grace period of one year to get in compliance without being liable for penalties. Producers who are in good faith compliance with their management plans, but through no fault of their own become non-compliant with environmental regulations, would have one year to correct the noncompliance without being liable for civil or criminal penalties.
This concept would provide (a) incentives to all agricultural producers; (b) participants with an annual guaranteed incentive payment; (c) incentives not only for implementation, but maintenance of conservation and environmental practices; and (d) an opportunity to provide family farms additional financial support beyond current programs.
Recommendation: Implementation of an environmental incentives program should be authorized at $1.25 billion annually.
Priority #4 Confidentiality
Confidentiality of USDA information has become an increasing concern and priority for farmers and ranchers. We have seen attempts by other government agencies to secure NRCS and NASS data for regulatory purposes. There have also been attempts by non-governmental organizations to secure farm and ranch data from FSA and APHIS.
Recommendation: Farm Bureau supports establishment of statutory authority that protects the confidentiality of all data collected by USDA on individual farms and ranches.
Priority #5 Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)
GLCI—The GLCI is a program providing additional technical assistance through NRCS for range and pasture management. This has been a very popular program and has accomplished a great deal in resource conservation with relatively little funding.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recommendation: We support the continuation of this program.
Priority #6 Air Quality Task Force
Due to lawsuits, new interpretations of existing law and new regulations under the Clean Air Act and other statues, agriculture is increasingly being targeted for air quality regulation. Emissions of particulate matter (dust) from field operations and livestock, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from livestock, and smoke from agricultural burning, have all been identified by either the EPA or in lawsuits, as agricultural sources of air pollution, though these emissions have not been previously addressed under the CAA. Farm groups are pursuing the need for sound science to identify agriculture's true emission of these pollutants prior to any regulation.
Recommendation: We support the inclusion of the Sec. 391 of the current FAIR Act. This language should remain in the new farm bill. One addition should be made. Under Sec. 391, part (d)(2) the following sentence should be added: ''Task Force members shall serve on the committee according to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) rules, with no limits on the number of terms they serve, as long they are approved by the Secretary.''
Priority #7 Farm Protection Program (FPP)
FPP—This program has been popular in many states. The intent of the FPP is to avoid development pressures, not dictate farming practices
Recommendation: Farm Bureau supports funding for FPP but opposes non-profit organization eligibility for Federal funding for the acquisition of development right easements under this program. Additionally, we oppose the imposition of any farm management plan on the property.
Priority #8 Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)
ECARP is the umbrella program for CRP, WRP and EQIP. ECARP lays out general guidelines for these programs. ECARP changes are necessary to accommodate EQIP recommendations.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recommendation: Air quality should be added to the goals and practices encompassed in ECARP. Priority area designation language should be rewritten in such a way as to not favor or discriminate against farmers and ranchers due to their proximity to a geographic area. Priorities should be set based on critical issues, needs and practices.
Priority #9 Forestry Incentive Program (FIP)
Recommendation: Support continuation of the FIP providing cost-share for tree planting.
Question # 4. Do any of the current conservation programs adversely affect your commodity or livestock operations?
Recommendation: As stated above, we believe the following changes are needed in EQIP authority to improve overall program operation:
Eliminate statutory language that prevents operators of larger farms from being eligible for cost-share;
Provide broader third-party technical assistance authority, which would allow farmers to hire consultants to provide technical assistance;
Eliminate priority areas which would allow all producers regardless of location to participate in program; and
Simplify program participation requirements.
Swampbuster. It was the intent of Congress to exclude farmland converted for the production of an agricultural commodity as well as the land where conversion was commenced prior to 1985 from Swampbuster regulation. There have been attempts to erode this exemption over the last several years. Certification language was added to the 1996 farm bill during final conference that weakens the exemption. This language has created considerable confusion regarding the status of prior converted land.
Recommendation: All certification language should be deleted (Sec. 1222, a, reference to certification in (1), all of 3,4,5,6,)
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Swampbuster—Wetlands MOA
Since its inception, the wetlands MOA has been very controversial and ultimately non-operational since 1996. Recent court cases have created further conflicts between CWA 404 and Swampbuster. The delineation process under the MOA never functioned well for farmers and created a significant workload for NRCS. AFBF has requested that NRCS withdraw from the MOA.
Recommendation: The wetland MOA language in Section 325 should be deleted.
Question #5. Why hasn't Section 335, Conservation Farm Option, been used to consolidate program payments from CRP, WRP, and EQIP into one payment?
Section 726 of Public law 106–387, passed by the 106th Congress prohibited funds being made available to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option program.
Question #6. Have Sections 351 through Sections 360 establishing the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation been useful and effective?
No. Report language contained in Public law 104–613 prohibited any use of Federal funds to establish or operate the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation.
Question #7. Please identify and breakdown costs to producers that are going to be incurred in order to comply with current environmental concerns caused by statute and through regulation. (e.g. CAFO/AFO regulations)
In most cases a professional planner will be needed to develop the type of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) envisioned by EPA. These changes will require that farms pay for practices on their own and in most cases hire a professional planner. The cost of these plans varies considerably depending on the existing practices and enterprises, present management, and size of the farm. Developing the plan can take the services of a crop management specialist, an animal nutritionist, an agricultural engineer, a veterinarian, and a financial planner. Information on the soils, watershed concerns, crop yields, animal production, bio-security methods, future goals of the farm, and the financial resources will need to be gathered. These plans, without adequate NRCS resources, will cost from $2,000 to $60,000 for typical farms to develop. NRCS has been and should continue providing these services, however they cannot be expected to provide much help to the large numbers of farms needing this service. NRCS can provide information but will be overwhelmed with the volume of information needed for all livestock farms.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the past NRCS was the main source of the designs and construction specifications of these practices (e.g., technical guidelines, best management practices and engineering specifications). Design work for some practices can be quite involved. Protecting a barnyard from off site water sources, and controlling the runoff through sediment basins and filter areas can involve many separate hydrological and hydraulic calculations. Working within the constraints of existing facilities can add considerably to the cost of the design. This design work often exceeds the traditional engineering design fee of 6–10 percent of the total cost of the project. Inspection costs to ensure compliance with standards and specifications can also add greatly to the costs. The typical engineering costs to implement the plans may range from $2,000 to $50,000 per farm.
The best information developed to date on the importance of technical assistance and implementation costs were compiled by the Cornell Cooperative Extension Service. They found the following:
New York City Watershed Agricultural Council has been working since 1995 to develop and implement pollution control plans that will reduce the potential for farms in the watershed to contaminate the surface water sources of New York City's drinking water supply. So far they have completed over 235 plans at an average cost of $10,000 each. This figure is derived from the four-person planning team's goal of two plans per month with a total cost per employee of $60,000 per year. Most farms in the New York City Watershed are smaller than 300 animal units. Most of the farms are challenged with barns and barnyards close to streams. The construction costs of the plans average $75,000 for the NYC watershed farms. Larger farms have construction costs above $1,000,000. Without the full costs of the plan development and construction costs, additional environmental results are questionable. The bottom line: average cost per dairy cow ranges from $1,000 to $2,000 for an average 80-cow dairy.
Skaneateles Lake provides drinking water for the city of Syracuse in upstate New York. The city has also agreed to pay for the plan development and implementation of practices that will protect the lake from agricultural pollution. The Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program was developed cooperating with Cornell Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts from the counties involved. So far the average cost of planning and designing the needed practices have been about $30,000 for each farm. The range has been $3,500 for a small one-enterprise farm to $196,000 for a large dairy. Again, the bottom line: average cost per dairy cow ranges from $1,000 to $2,000 for an average 80-cow dairy
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nationally, farmers need NRCS help in developing these plans and in providing cost-share assistance. EPA has estimated that there are 450,000 Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) in the U.S. If the average CNMP takes a professional 320 hours to complete, (the time used in the NYC Watershed) and the average professional has 2,000 hours available to develop CNMPs, it will take 7,200 people 10 years to provide this effort. This would not include the time spent in design and construction inspection or the time spent in changing and updating CNMPs.
If the average cost is $50,000 per farm, it will take the current EQIP budget of $200 million at a 50 percent cost share rate 56 years to finance this effort. In this scenario farmers would be providing half the cost of implementation, $11.25 billion. This does not include the cost of maintenance or additional operating costs. Farms will also be impacted by the activities in the Mississippi River Basin to address the seasonal hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico and by activities in the Everglades.
Recommendation: Farm Bureau supports a significant increase in funding for voluntary incentive-based programs and NRCS technical assistance to assist producers with the cost of Federal, state and local regulatory requirements.
Question #8. Is the Conservation Security Act intended to replace existing Conservation and Commodity programs or to coexist with those currently being administered?
We believe the ''Conservation Security Act-type program'' should coexist with and complement current conservation and commodity programs. The conservation title should:
Continue to improve the environment through expanded incentives to encourage voluntary soil conservation, water and air quality programs, and advance technological and biotechnological procedures that are based on sound science and are economically feasible;
Provide willing producers with additional voluntary incentives for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increased regulatory costs on all levels—Federal, state and local—are placing a heavy burden on individual farmers and ranchers as well as distorting the traditional structure of our industry. Farmers and ranchers understand the importance of protecting the environment. Their livelihood depends on it. However, the expenses that are incurred to meet compliance are taking a heavy toll on farm incomes and forcing farmers and ranchers to spread the cost of increased regulation over more units of production. The unintended consequence is the inability of small and medium sized family farms to compete in a highly charged regulatory environment.
We believe there is a need for a new environmental policy framework. A policy that provides an opportunity for farmers and ranchers and the public to move beyond the current debate over whether the public has the right to mandate features and/or farming practices in the rural landscape.
U.S. farmers and ranchers have historically shown that if either market forces or government support prices provide sufficient incentives, such as $3.00 per bushel corn or $4.00 per bushel wheat, we can produce an abundant supply of these commodities. Similarly, if a voluntary incentive is offered for a desirable environmental outcome, farmers will overwhelm America with improved soil conservation, water quality, air quality and wildlife habitats.
In order for a conservation incentive payment program to work well, public policy must recognize the inherent limitations ''command and control'' regulations have in acquiring desired public benefits of an environmental nature. Efficient public policy is one where the thing demanded by society is the thing that is being produced. ''Command and control'' forms of environmental laws have run their course.
There is little doubt that we have made strides in improving our environment over the last three decades. By nearly every measure our environment and natural resources are in much better shape than at any time in our lifetimes. As the demand for environmental enhancements increase it is important that we examine the public policy tools that we have at our disposal and determine whether they are appropriate or not. The command and control nature of many of the first-generation environmental statutes were for the problems of the 1960's and 1970's. The programs were, and continue to be very controversial and adversarial in nature. Compliance was expensive and inefficient but comparatively easy to measure.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to building on the gains of the last three decades, the public now desires open space, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, diverse landscapes and recreational activities. These are clearly more ephemeral policy goals that require a more delicate and site-specific policy approach. The existing environmental policy framework is not equipped to function in a way that is most efficient in achieving the policy objectives we are faced with in the future. Public policy, and in this case, the conservation title should move beyond preventing bad things to policies of promoting good things. ''Command and control'' mechanisms do not provide an attractive incentive for farmers and ranchers to produce the things that the public wants. A new, more efficient and effective approach should be developed to assist farmers and ranchers in providing the public with what it wants. It should be voluntary, provide sufficient economic incentive and clearly define the benefits that society at large derives from agriculture.
Farmers and ranchers can produce and market more than traditional agricultural commodities. We can also produce and market environmental benefits. Agriculture and the government can work together to create an alternative market for environmental improvements or amenities that the public desires. Such environmental features may include erosion control and improved water quality, ecological services such as nutrient filters and carbon sinks, habitat, bio-diverse landscapes and recreational opportunities; and rural amenities—visual aesthetics and scenic vistas to name a few.
Recommendation: We encourage the Committee to work with us to find the right mix of policy options that will:
Allow the market to determine the value for these new ''environmental commodities;
Provide voluntary participants with an annual guaranteed incentive payment and/or additional cost share;
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Make incentives available to ALL producers;
Does not replace or disturb any existing or future payment program unless participants choose to opt out of traditional farm programs; and
Allows confidential conservation plans to provide an improved level of assurance and accountability of the conservation efforts undertaken by the program participants.
We believe such a program would provide incentives for both implementation and maintenance of conservation and environmental practices and give the public an easy to understand argument for expanding the agricultural entitlement baseline. It would also provide incentives to producers that conform to WTO green box requirements and provide program participants the opportunity to improve the quality of rural life and increase rural economic development by providing a stable and diverse presence for agriculture. The bottom line is we believe this committee has an opportunity to capture the win/win efficiencies of providing producers with additional conservation incentives for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.
Statement of Thomas A. Weber
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and provide an update on the Conservation Programs implemented by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Mr. Chairman, as you know, farmers across America are faced with ever increasing pressures to maintain productive and profitable businesses. Prices for many farm commodities have been the lowest in years and poor weather and growing conditions have been issues in many areas. Production costs have increased due to many factors including rising prices of nitrogen fertilizer and natural gas. In addition to these concerns, farmers face increasing pressures associated with natural resources. In recent years, concern regarding the health of our soils, water supply, and air has made farming and ranching increasingly difficult.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We know that farmers want to be good stewards of the land. They know that stewardship is in the best interests of long-term productivity of their farming operations. And by and large, it is also important to farmers and ranchers who want to leave improved natural resources and a better environment for future generations. Our mission is to help farmers and ranchers meet the challenge of sustaining their natural resources while maintaining a productive and profitable business.
Today, I would like to highlight the many ways our conservation programs are making a difference around the countryside. Since the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act), NRCS has experienced an increased national demand for participation in conservation programs. Farmers are utilizing these programs for a variety of benefits, including managing nutrients to save on input costs and protect water quality, restoring and protecting wetlands to create wildlife habitat, installing grassed waterways to control erosion, and implementing systems to increase forage production and manage invasive species.
Farmers and ranchers are using conservation to improve the productivity and sustainability of their operation, while also improving the asset value of their operation. Our programs are voluntary. In response to new environmental regulations at many levels, we are helping farmers and ranchers meet some of the regulatory pressures they face. In turn conservation programs provide public benefits that go well beyond the edge of the ranch or farm field. Mr. Chairman, I believe that conservation programs the Congress included in the 1996 Act, when coupled with our historic conservation programs, and the state and local delivery system are proven winners for the farmer, and the country as a whole.
CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The cornerstones of our conservation activities are the NRCS workforce and our partnerships. Everything we accomplish is contingent upon the talents and technical skills of our field staff around the country. They are trained professionals with the technical tools, standards and specifications to get the job done. NRCS has operated since its creation through voluntary cooperative partnerships with individuals, conservation districts, state and local governments, and other Federal agencies and officials. That partnership may be even more important today if we are to meet the challenging conservation problems facing our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we are accomplishing much through the 1996 Act programs, it is important not to lose sight of the importance of our ongoing Conservation Technical Assistance program. For more than 60 years, the NRCS has used conservation technical assistance to build a foundation of trust with people who voluntarily conserve their natural resources. Each year, the NRCS provides information, education, planning, and/or implementation assistance to more than 1 million land users. On average, the Agency's conservation assistance leverages more than $1 in contributions for every Federal dollar invested. And through the National Cooperative Soil Survey, approximately, 22,000,000 acres have been mapped each year, so that natural resource decisions are based upon the best information available.
NRCS accomplishes its goals by working with 3,000 local Conservation Districts that have been established by state law and with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Governments. We also leverage our resources with the help of more than 348 Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils. State and local governments contribute substantially, with both people and funding to complement NRCS technical and financial assistance. Approximately 7,750 full time equivalent staff years are provided annually by NRCS partners and volunteers.
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP)
Next, I would like to highlight the accomplishments of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). WRP preserves, protects, and restores valuable wetlands mainly on marginal agricultural lands where historic wetland functions and values have been either depleted or substantially diminished. Program delivery emphasizes maximizing wetland wildlife benefits, providing for water quality and flood storage benefits, and providing for general aesthetic and open space needs. Approximately 70 percent the WRP project sites are within areas that are frequently subjected to flooding, reducing the severity of future flood events. WRP is also making a substantial contribution to the restoration of the Nation's migratory bird habitats, especially for waterfowl.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As directed in the 1996 Act, the enrollment is separated into three components (permanent easements, 30-year easements, and cost-share agreements). Pursuant to appropriations act directives, enrollment is being balanced to respond to the level of landowner interest in each of these three components.
The 1996 Act authorized a total cumulative enrollment of 975,000 acres in the program. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2000, the program had nearly reached maximum enrollment. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001 provided an additional 100,000 acres, raising the cumulative enrollment cap to 1,075,000 acres and allowing 140,000 acres to enroll in fiscal year 2001.
From inception of the program in 1992 through 2000, interest in WRP has been exceptional. Historically, there have been many more acres offered than the program could enroll. One benefit of WRP is the amount of resources we have been able to leverage with other Federal programs as well as non-governmental organizations. It is clear from our experience to date, Mr. Chairman, that the WRP continues to be very popular with farmers and ranchers and is a program that has strong support around the countryside.
WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM (WHIP)
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) provides up to 75 percent cost-share for implementing wildlife habitat practices to develop upland wildlife habitat, wetland wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat as well as aquatic habitat. WHIP also helps landowners meet their own needs while supporting wildlife habitat development, and to develop new partnerships with State wildlife agencies, nongovernmental agencies and others.
The program was initially funded at a total of $50 million in the 1996 Act. As a result of strong interest in the program, those funds were exhausted at the end of fiscal year 1999, at which time 1.4 million acres were enrolled in 8600 long-term wildlife habitat development agreements. For fiscal year 2001, $12.5 million will be provided for WHIP from funding in section 211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, as authorized in the fiscal year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. NRCS has made an enormous effort to develop partnerships and outreach methods with government and private organizations to develop a program that targets specific state concerns.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP)
The FPP protects prime or unique farmland, lands of State or local importance, and other productive soils from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It provides matching funds to leverage funds from States, Tribes, or local government entities that have farmland protection programs. The FPP establishes partnerships with State, Tribes, and local government entities to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land. It ensures that valuable farmland is preserved for future generations and also helps maintain a healthy environment and sustainable rural economy. The program was initially funded in the 1996 Act at a level of $35 million. To date, all funds have been expended, and local interest in the program continues to be strong. For fiscal year 2001, additional funding provided in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 will fund the FPP at $17.5 million. On January 22, 2001, a request for proposals was published in the Federal Register. Eligible entities had until March 8, 2001 to submit their proposals. After the evaluation process is concluded, successful applicants will be notified in June, 2001.
FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (FIP)
To increase timber production, FIP was authorized by Congress in 1978 to share the costs of tree planting, timber stand improvement, and other related practices on nonindustrialized private forest lands. The Federal share of these costs ranges up to 65 percent.
Mr. Chairman, the demand for sawtimber, plywood logs, and quality hardwood logs continues to be strong. To meet the demand for these products, more trees must be planted and more forestland placed under good forest management. FIP is designed to share the expense with eligible, private landowners to produce timber. For the life of the practices, additional environmental benefits accrue including wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration.
Funding for FIP for fiscal year 2001 is $6,325,000. With these funds 4,049 participants were enrolled with forest management plans on 151,015 acres of private forestland. Of this total, 117,026 acres of trees were planted, 23,709 acres of timber stand improvements were accomplished, and 10,230 acres of site preparation for natural regeneration was implemented. We would estimate that since 1975, landowners have established nearly 4 million acres of tree planting and 1.5 million acres of timber stand improvement.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (EQIP)
EQIP provides technical, financial, and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and related natural resources on agricultural land and other land. The 1996 Act authorized $200 million, annually for EQIP, utilizing funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). For fiscal year 2001, the final appropriation was $200 million. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $174 million was available. Consistent with the authorizing legislation, the program is primarily available in priority conservation areas in order to maximize the benefits of each Federal conservation dollar. The priority areas consist of watersheds, regions, or areas of special environmental sensitivity or having significant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns that have been recommended through a locally-led conservation process. For fiscal year 2000, nearly 85 percent of the EQIP financial assistance funding was provided within priority areas. I would also note that an additional $20 million will be provided for soil and water conservation assistance outside of conservation priority areas in fiscal year 2001. This funding was initiated through the Agricultural Risk Management Protection Act of 2000.
The EQIP program has been extremely successful. We received 76,168 applications in fiscal year 2000. After NRCS ranked the applications based on criteria developed at the local and state level, 16,443 long-term contracts with farmers and ranchers were approved. Since inception of the program, EQIP has averaged about 3 to 6 times the number of applications than could be approved with available annual funding.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would note that conservation doesn't just happen. It happens because all of us, including the Congress, the conservation partners, and most importantly, the people living on the land working together to make it happen. As exemplified through the many programs and activities we have underway, there is a great deal happening on the ground. The public benefits are an improved quality of life, affordable and safe food supply, clean air and water, reduced damages from floods and other natural disasters, abundant fish and wildlife, scenic landscapes, and a sustainable resource base. These benefits are critical to sustain agricultural production, economic prosperity and the social fabric of our communities now and in the future. We are proud of our accomplishments and look forward to working with you to build on all that we have done thus far. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee might have.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Bill Horan
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Horan. I raise corn, soybeans, oats and alfalfa in partnership with my brother Joe in Rockwell City, Iowa. I am a member of the National Corn Growers Association's Board of Directors. The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) represents more than 31,000 direct members and the 300,000 corn farmers throughout the Nation who make check-off payments each year. I am testifying today on behalf of the NCGA, the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, and the National Barley Growers Association. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony.
The members of our organizations are committed to being good stewards of the land and leaving the environment in better shape than we found it. We have a commitment to our community to ensure that we have clean water and healthy, viable soil to ensure the land is productive for many years to come. We take responsibility for our farming activities and must do so with a keen eye towards conservation, productivity and marketing.
We support the voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs that the past farm bills have created. We believe that flexibility in programs is essential for their widespread adoption, given local variances in conservation and water quality priorities, production practices, climate, soil type and many other factors. These programs have demonstrated agriculture's commitment to working collaboratively with United States Department of Agriculture and other organizations and a commitment to water quality, air quality, habitat protection, and a healthy environment. We believe that these voluntary programs have been successful in producing environmental benefits. As we look toward the next farm bill, we are interested in conservation programs that assist growers in maintaining and/or undertaking new conservation practices in their farming operations. Any new program should contemplate financial assistance for conservation practices on resources and management that support production and generate environmental benefits.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we look at broader Clean Water Act issues and regulations, we know that agriculture plays an important role in maintaining a healthy environment. All agricultural producers face increasing regulatory burdens whether it is local, State or Federal requirements on the management of their land. We support programs that will work with our members in utilizing conservation practices and work to maintain a healthy environment. A conservation/environmental incentive payment program could assist growers in meeting these increasing requirements. This approach recognizes an important part of adoption of conservation practice across the farming community - which is, that growers need financial and technical assistance in management of their operations based on conservation principles.
Intensive resource management practices can become as important as a filter strip or buffer strip in achieving conservation goals, but these management practices or choices frequently add to the costs and risks of the farming operation. These are the areas that should be included in the development of the Conservation Title of the next farm bill. Policymakers can work with growers to identify conservation practices that fit in with their management and stewardship of working land. Any program modifications or enhancements must maintain flexibility for local implementation to maximize both participation and effectiveness.
Regarding existing programs, we support continuation of the existing cost-share programs including the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—including continuous sign-up, Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and others. These programs have been an excellent investment for the public and have generated significant environmental benefits as documented by USDA. Programs that take land out of production should be managed so as not to take whole farms out of production. The focus of the continuous signup should be on small areas of specific environmental value and there should be local flexibility to meet the environmental concerns facing a specific area of the country. We believe that the CRP should be fully utilized to the 36.4 million acre cap and that any additional land enrolled should be the most environmentally beneficial land utilizing the continuous signup. While the Wetland Reserve Program has generated enrollment that is expected to reach the 1,075,000-acre cap this year, as with CRP, we do not support increasing the acreage cap at this time.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the provisions of the 1996 farm bill concerning wetlands and highly erodible land, we support maintaining the flexibility that farmers were given in the bill. Our organizations worked during the last farm bill to provide flexibility for growers with wet areas on their farms. Concepts such as minimal effects and mitigation banking would have provided some flexibility for growers with specific areas of concern on their farm. NRCS has been unable to implement some of the flexibility due to the lack of cooperation of other Federal Agencies, however we would urge the Committee to see that flexibility is maintained and that growers are able to utilize these provisions. Also the implementation of wetland regulations has not been consistent across the country and we ask the Committee to encourage NRCS to implement wetland rules fairly and consistently.
The recent Supreme Court ruling has intensified the inequity of wetland regulations. Since the 1985 farm bill, farmers participating in the farm program have been held to the highest standard of wetland protection in the land. This inequity was supposed to be addressed in the 1996 farm bill with some of the regulatory relief measures that were included in the bill. Recently, significant wetlands regulatory relief was granted by the courts due to the Supreme Court ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding isolated wetlands. While this is welcome relief to developers and our State and county highway departments it is of little help to most farmers since swampbuster is still the highest, regulatory hurdle. In fact, we will now face the irony of court ordered regulatory relief for all except the American farmer.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program offers farmers a unique opportunity to receive NRCS technical assistance and cost share monies to install conservation practices improving wildlife habitat on private lands. We support the program's state and locally-driven habitat priority setting process, and also NRCS's coordination role with private partners like Ducks Unlimited and the National Association of Conservation Districts in implementing the program at the ground level. The commodity organizations support the continuation of this voluntary program. Further, since this program's objectives are to enhance wildlife, we would encourage a balanced approach to the addition of overly costly wildlife objectives to other program rules and regulations.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, while designed to better target scarce financial resources, has become a very complicated program for commodity producers to utilize. Many were understanding of the desire to consolidate programs and prioritize project areas, but the ensuing challenge and dissatisfaction centers around who gets access to limited fund. Improvements should be made to the program to expand the flexibility and allow more producers to participate and increase the total funds available.
While each area of agriculture is facing commodity specific production concerns, many of us also watch with keen interest the status of the U.S. Livestock industry. The interdependence of commodity and livestock production is very evident in U.S. agriculture and we strive to maintain the productivity and profitability of each. Increasing regulations, Federal, state and local are placing a heavy burden upon agriculture and we must be given the tools and resources to comply with new regulations if we are to remain competitive in a global market place.
Each of these programs mentioned provide an integral part of the overall conservation and environmental/water quality objectives. Federal programs provide financial resources and technical assistance to facilitate the adoption and management of conservation practices. Federal, state and local cost-share programs are essential for the greater benefit provided by these practices. Our members are engaged in farming as a livelihood and must maintain the ability to raise productive crops on their land and market their crops to maximize profitability.
We support locally led, voluntary, incentive-based programs, specifically those that work on a watershed basis. In order for these programs to work, there must be local people to work with our farmers and others in agriculture in improving conservation practices. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a good track record on voluntary incentive-based programs, as well as an extensive field staff network. Therefore, we in agriculture will be looking to NRCS as an important delivery mechanism of technical assistance to landowners. We support Federal funding for NRCS conservation operations; to maintain and expand that structure as needed to help protect our natural resource needs.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recognizing that there are still gains to be made in water quality, we believe that our goals of clean water, productive land and a viable domestic market are attainable. We believe that USDA is the primary Federal Government resource to assist growers across the country in attaining these goals. Whether it is through the technical assistance provided to growers for compliance with a myriad of government programs or for voluntarily adopting a conservation practice, USDA has the structure with local delivery units, to provide the support necessary for growers to continue their commitment to the land.
Each of our organizations are facing their own production and marketing challenges. Low commodity prices, coupled with increasing input costs, new regulatory burdens and the need to continually increase productivity have resulted in a serious cost/price squeeze and low farm income. We appreciate the opportunity the Committee provided for each of our organizations to present specific commodity program proposals. We also appreciate the efforts of the committee to secure additional funding for agriculture in the new budget resolution. As we have each presented the committee with commodity specific proposals, we share the conservation goals outlined in this statement and the belief that the conservation title should work in conjunction with a fully funded commodity title. It is essential to us that the provisions of the conservation title provide voluntary, incentive-based options for producers, but not replace or serve as a substitute for the commodity programs proposed by our organizations in earlier hearings. Producers need to be given flexibility in meeting increasing regulatory challenges whether they are local, state or Federal requirements placed on their operations or the management of their land. USDA technical assistance, local watershed activities and cost-share programs are a proven approach to addressing environmental challenges. We support continuing this conservation commitment to help undertake conservation practices on productive farmland through the reauthorization of the conservation title of the next farm bill.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Dusty Tallman
Mr. Chairman, as president of the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), and on behalf of wheat producing farmers across the nation, I thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony regarding the Conservation Title of the farm bill.
NAWG represents the 238,000 U.S. farmers that plant approximately 63 million acres of wheat annually. Besides providing the world with a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of food, our members are tremendous stewards of the Nation's land, environment, and wildlife resources. We are committed to our families, our communities, and our country to ensure that we maintain and improve the productivity of the land, the health of the environment, and the quality of our food supply.
The farming and ranching community has made tremendous strides, often at personal cost, to improve the environment. With rebounding waterfowl and wildlife populations, better soil conditions and decreased erosion rates, and improved wetland protection and restoration efforts, agriculture continues to make positive environmental contributions through efforts on private lands.
As you know, however, America's farmers continue to face pressures to further protect the environment while simultaneously confronting the reality of low commodity prices, increased input costs, and at best marginal profitability. Farming is becoming an increasingly difficult business as the struggle to maintain profitability collides with tougher air, water, and land use regulations.
Mr. Chairman, NAWG supports the voluntary, incentive-based, and flexible conservation programs that have allowed the agriculture community to make these impressive environmental gains. As we confront the new environmental challenges of the twenty-first century, we would urge that we learn from the lessons of the past. Mandates and heavy-handed regulations are inefficient, ineffective, and very inequitable, and often fail to deliver the promise of a better working environment.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Environmental problems increasingly require site-specific policies that can be adapted to local climates, resource conditions, and specific operator needs. In addition, the future of on-farm conservation practices will be proactive in nature as producers are now demonstrating through the adoption of practices such as conservation tillage that seek to prevent future problems. Finally, the future of conservation will require reasonable incentives to encourage and assist operators in the adoption of sound, proactive conservation practices. As such, NAWG offers the following comments on current and proposed conservation programs and environmental issues.
Conservation Reserve Program. While we fully support the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), NAWG believes the current cap of 36.4 million acres is adequate and should not be raised. The regular CRP, and the continuous sign-up and conservation reserve enhancement program components, have proven a valuable investment for the public and the environment. However, we believe that increasing the investment in CRP is not productive or cost-efficient.
In some locations, CRP whole-farm acreage and high rental rates are beginning to out-compete producers who seek to rent land for production. Contract rentals should be limited to the average county rental rate, and care should be taken before enrolling whole farms in the program. In addition, the Environmental Benefits Index should be revised to return the focus of CRP to marginal soils and fragile lands. Any additional acreage remaining under the existing cap should be enrolled in the continuous sign-up to help producers address site-specific and sometimes cost-prohibitive environmental problems.
1Wetlands Reserve Program. Like the CRP, the WRP has been a very successful program. However, NAWG does not support raising the acreage cap from the current 1,050,000 level. Acreage set-aside programs such as the WRP and CRP are excellent programs, but they do not represent the future of on-farm conservation.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The EQIP program should be made more equitable, and it should be amended to allow commodity producers to better utilize the program. Currently 75 percent of all funding goes to priority areas, leaving many producers ineligible for EQIP cost-share dollars. Either the priority-area process should be revised, or some of the focus should shift from places to practices, allowing the flexibility to address specific concerns such as TMDLs or encourage practices such as BMPs. This shift would allow many more producers to participate in the program.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The funding structure should also be changed: cost-share and incentive payments under EQIP should be made as soon as possible following a contract, and program funding should be allowed to be carried over between fiscal years. Funding should also be available for land enrolled in the CRP or WRP. Shorter-term contracts should also be made available to interested producers.
Finally, the whole farm planning emphasis of EQIP makes it difficult for many producers to benefit from the program. Whole farm planning is expensive, time consuming, and often the local NRCS staff does not have the resources to meet demand. The Committee should provide greater authority to use certified third party vendors for technical assistance and planning.
Wetlands. We believe it is a responsibility of the Committee to provide a rational and coherent national policy guiding the utilization, protection, and enhancement of wetlands on our agricultural lands. Operators should have clear and unambiguous direction from the government regarding their responsibilities under wetland regulations. Currently, such direction is lacking, leaving many producers in a quagmire of conflicting agency jurisdictions and missions.
NAWG supports wetland regulations that provide full flexibility to producers. Minimal effects regulations and wetland mitigation banking should be aggressively utilized to minimize problems associated with wetland regulations and swampbuster. Part of the reason the NRCS has been unable to implement the flexibility on wetland issues provided under the 1996 farm bill is due to a lack of cooperation from other Federal agencies. We would ask the Committee to see that wetland regulations are implemented on a more equitable and consistent basis, and that growers are allowed to utilize the wetland mitigation and minimal effect provisions of the 1996 act.
Conservation Incentive Payments. We are aware that members of the Committee and many others have expressed an interest in creating a new program to provide incentive payments for working lands conservation. NAWG believes the future of on-farm conservation policy should focus on productive agriculture lands rather than set-asides and reserves. However, we do have some concerns regarding these conservation incentive payment programs.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we appreciate and support the concept of focusing conservation efforts on working lands, we remain wary that a new program may create new problems. First, we are concerned that local NRCS staffs and budgets will be over-burdened; currently, there is a greater need for technical assistance and staff field time than the NRCS can possibly provide. Any new major conservation program would likely intensify these problems.
Another significant concern is the possible association between future environmental regulations and the proposed incentive payments. Farmers now engage in many of the conservation practices on working lands in a voluntary manner, free from the encumbrances of cost-share programs or government regulations. While we encourage a continued focus on the adoption of sound production practices, such as conservation tillage, we remain justifiably concerned that today's incentive payments may become tomorrow's production regulation.
Finally, while we understand and appreciate the importance of the farm bill's conservation title, we do not want to see commodity program payments replaced by any form of conservation incentive payments. The first responsibility of our nation's agriculture producers is to provide the world with a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of food, feed, and fiber. The government should continue to provide assistance to this end, and should not seek to replace food production as the primary objective of our nation's agricultural lands.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to thank you and the Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony and share our thoughts and concerns regarding the conservation title of the farm bill. While we recognize that new environmental challenges await agriculture, and that the public is placing new values, such as recreation and amenity values, on farmland, we would ask that we first recognize the gains agriculture has made. As we have increased productivity, cost-effectiveness, and profitability, we have also improved the condition of our land, air, water, and wildlife resources.
These achievements should not be overlooked; nor should the manner of our successes be ignored. Farmers continue to lead by example, protecting the environment and wildlife through voluntary measures on their private property. Where assistance is needed, incentive and cost-share programs that are flexible, voluntary, and farmer-friendly have provided the encouragement to address the more difficult and costly problems. The future of on-farm conservation lies down this path.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(CONSERVATION PROGRAMS)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Moran, Thune, Osborne, Graves, Putnam, Kennedy, Baldacci, Phelps, Thompson of California, Baca, Peterson of Minnesota, Clayton and Stenholm [ex officio].
Also present: Representative Chambliss.
Staff present: Ryan Weston, subcommittee staff director; Dave Ebersole, Callista Gingrich, chief clerk; Susanna Love, Elizabeth Meyer, Anne Simmons, and John Riley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. LUCAS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research to review the conservation issues will come to order.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to welcome you to the subcommittee's second of three hearings to discuss conservation issues. Two weeks ago, I stated that this subcommittee had been tasked with determining what conservation measures are needed in the next farm bill and that we would not take that responsibility lightly.
The invitation letter sent out to last week and today's witnesses asked for specific information and, just to note for the record, the letters clearly stated that the purpose of this hearing was to receive testimony from you regarding conservation programs in the context of a comprehensive farm bill. The subcommittee is interested in how the current programs are operating, what changes need to be made to the programs and their funding levels and whether current programs or new programs are needed to help producers comply with the regulatory standards.
Some of the organizations have done an excellent job of giving recommendations, while others have a little work yet to do. The reason I have asked for witnesses to give testimony in the context of a comprehensive farm bill is so that they are aware of all of the spending needs that we must consider.
In addition to the commodity and conservation titles of the farm bill, we are going to have requests for changes in the credit and rural development and research titles that will also require expenditure of mandatory funds.
The interesting fact is that if we add up what the majority of groups are asking for in the commodity titles plus what most groups are asking for or are going to ask for in a conservation title, we have already spent more money than has been budgeted for the entire farm bill, and that's why I want to focus this hearing on what is working and what is not working and what can be done in a more efficient fashion and how that can be accomplished.
Last week, this subcommittee was asked to spend over $1 billion more per year on EQIP alone. The request was to ensure that there would be available to agriculture producers cost share and incentive funds. This week, we will be asked to expand CRP, WRP, as well as WHIP, the Farmland Protection Programs and others. This is all before we are asked to look at an incentive payment program that could run into the billions of dollars per year.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Can we expect USDA to effectively administer a new program when they have a backlog in current programs, or should we be focusing on ensuring that the current programs are adequately funded?
CRP alone is authorized to set aside $36 million acres, and that is over 10 percent of the cropland of the entire United States. If it goes up to 45 million acres and we add in other permanent easement programs, we will be setting aside somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of the cropland in the United States. Now, some economic studies have led us to believe that as we set aside land our competitors overseas simply have made up the difference.
We all know that numbers can be manipulated to show various results, and I am a supporter of CRP. However, I simply want all of you to consider the pros and cons of our actions. Is taking more land out of production good for the U.S. farm sector and rural economies? I believe we will see a good debate on this issue today and in the coming days.
With that, do any of my colleagues have any opening statements?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilliard follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Chairman, members and distinguished guests, conservation programs on private land are some of the most important available to America's fanners. In my district in the Black Belt of Alabama, more money comes to fanners from conservation spending alone than from commodity payments.
This means that conservation provides more Federal money to Alabama fanners than commodity payments for cotton, our largest crop. These programs, especially the Conservation Reserve Program, provide the difference between success and failure for many fanners in this Nation, as well as in my own district and State.
I support all American fanners, but I am especially concerned for our small, poor, and minority fanners who continue to have difficulty accessing Government programs. I hope in your testimony that you will address this problem of access and use of the programs. It is my belief that conservation programs, while protecting and restoring the health of our lands, can also bolster these small fanners. Their lives, families, their communities and their values are important to our great nation and I think that all our programs should consider and support the least among us.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. We will now turn to our first panel; and they are right there at the table. Ms. Jamie Clover Adams, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture from Topeka, Kansas, and on behalf of the National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture; Mr. Joe Cantu, president of the National Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils, Incorporated, Pipe Creek, Texas; Mr. J. Read Smith, president of the National Association of Conservation Districts, Resource Conservation Development Councils, St. John, Washington; Joe Neal Hampton, president of the Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association, Enid, Oklahoma, on behalf of the National Grain and Feed Association.
Ms. Adams, when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE CLOVER ADAMS, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TOPEKA, KS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and offer testimony on the conservation provisions of the farm bill.
For the record, my name is Jamie Clover Adams, and I am here today to represent the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
Today I will present a broad outline of a new environmental stewardship program for America's open spaces, the 900 million acres under the care of American farmers, ranchers and their families.
I need to stress that this is a work in process. It is a product of extensive discussions over many months with my colleagues from every region of the country. Our dialog continues. We do support the continuation of existing programs with increased funding, and we recommend certain changes in WHIP, EQIP and CRP. For example, with EQIP, we recommend that USDA allow flexibility and discretion in administering the program, allow 1-year contracts, remove the $50,000 payment cap and remove the national size restriction for livestock projects.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These and other proposed changes are described in my written testimony.
Despite the overall viability of existing programs, we see gaps in coverage that are probably inevitable, given the focus of these programs on national issues.
Because meeting environmental demands is a make-or-break challenge for many agricultural producers, many of our State Departments of Agriculture have taken the initiative to design programs tailored to address resource needs in our States that cannot be met with existing conservation programs.
For example, in Kansas, the Kansas Department of Agriculture established a pesticide management area. The object was to limit the amount of atrazine and other soil-applied herbicides that were going into our surface waters.
First, we worked with our Kansas State University to develop voluntary best management practices, and we published those, dependent on the farmers tillage practice. Then our State Conservation Commission offered a pilot program of $5 per acre to farmers in one critical watershed to encourage the adoption of these BMPs. Further, these farmers were contacted on various occasions, both by the Conservation Commission and by a KSU extension employee dedicated to the project.
Participation was nearly 100 percent. But, more importantly, all waters have been removed from the atrazine-impaired waters list, except for Tuttle Creek, which receives 80 percent of its pesticide load from Nebraska. And I am happy to report that Kansas and Nebraska are working together to solve that issue as well.
The PMA and similar programs in other States supplement existing Federal conservation programs while helping farmers bear the cost of what we see as substantial public benefit. And I would emphasize that they are providing a public benefit that the public wants.
We know that expectations, as the chairman said, in growing, increasing regulation are putting burdens on our farmers and ranchers. The short-term and long-term economic payback just isn't there, and you all know that agriculture is not like other businesses where they can pass those costs of production on to consumers. It competes with servicing farm debt and other family financial needs.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also point out to the committee that the Federal Government has spent a lot of money cost sharing with local governments to upgrade wastewater treatment plants across our country to meet the requirements of Clean Water Act without bankrupting small communities across our Nation, and we only ask for that consideration as well for America's farmers and ranchers.
Now, to the block grant program that NASDA proposes, it is a new program, kind of if you think of it as a working fund to get at these gaps, to get at the needs that we see on the ground every day in our States.
First, the funding would be provided through cooperative agreements between USDA and State departments of agriculture. The State Departments would serve as the lead agency in designing and carrying out the program.
Second, the program parameters would recognize activities that enhance protection of the land, water, air and wildlife, defined in the broadest terms possible to permit local flexibility and avoid duplication of existing planning systems and infrastructure.
Third, the States would have the flexibility to allocate dollars between both payments to producers and technical assistance based on local needs and priorities.
Fourth, participation would be voluntary, incentive-based and targeted to environmental enhancements that are supported by science and, most importantly, produce results.
Contract payments could be made on an annual basis, and all data would be private and confidential.
We expected, Mr. Chairman, that this proposal would fit within the green box of WTO and our commitments there.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I would be glad to stand for questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Adams appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Cantu.
STATEMENT OF JOE CANTU, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS, PIPE CREEK, TX
Mr. CANTU. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Joe Cantu. I am president of the National Association of the Resource Conservation and Development Councils. I am one of thousands of volunteers who serve on RC&D councils across the country. I am here to discuss the farm bill recommendations for the RC&D Program. I would like to submit my full written statement for the record.
The RC&D Program began as a pilot USDA effort to address conservation and economic development in rural areas.
The Resource Conservation and Development Program is based on a number of concepts that make it a truly unique Government program. These concepts include: community sustainability with a balance between rural economic development and natural resource protection; grassroots involvement; leveraging limited Federal dollars; public/private partnerships; and bringing USDA agencies together to focus on the same problems and opportunities.
RC&D Council members are volunteers that include local, civic, appointed and elected officials. RC&D councils are nonprofit organizations that work in partnership with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The program has grown significantly over the years as a result of its ability to provide local solutions to local challenges. We are the catalyst for bringing people together to identify their needs, and then we search out funds to solve the problems.
Here are a few examples: The Cherokee Hills RC&D Council in Oklahoma was instrumental in the formation of and continues to provide technical assistance to the TenKiller Utilities Authority. As a result of RC&D assistance, the community is now seeing improved health standards for an underserved population. Over 60,000 customers are provided with safe drinking water.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ALA-Tom RC&D Council in Alabama is very active in small farm revitalization efforts. The council has facilitated four cooperatives and developed basic infrastructure to provide markets for their products. Last year, in spite of a serious drought, one of the cooperatives made a profit and prevented local crop failures because of RC&D Councils assisted them with a mulch/irrigation project. The council has assisted the cooperatives in developing a system so that they can sell their products to the school lunch programs both in Alabama and in Florida. This effort has improved the quality of life for many minority farm families and stimulated the economy in those areas.
RC&D councils are making a difference in America's communities and represent the entrepreneurial spirit of rural America. RC&D councils have played a strong role in increasing new businesses, education, conserving our natural resources, bioenergy development and outreach.
To assist in increasing conservation and economic development in communities that are hard hit by low farm income, the National Association of RC&D councils requests the following changes to the farm bill:
Permanent authorization of the RC&D Program. This is our highest priority. We believe that the recent growth in the RC&D Program from 277 councils in 1996 to 348 councils in 2001, covering 80 percent of the Nation and 180 million people, is a testament to our success. Congress has recognized the valuable services RC&D councils provide to local communities and has helped to grow this program.
In addition, we have successfully leveraged a $42 million Federal investment into more than $1 billion annually to directly support conservation and economic development, making a continued investment in RC&D a cost-effective investment of taxpayers' funds.
Update our statement of purpose and write the role of the RC&D councils into the law and define RC&D councils' affiliations. The recommendation is a technical change to the law. The structure of the RC&D councils evolved and USDA recognizes RC&D councils as the entity that carried out the mission of resource conservation development. As a result, we believe that RC&D councils need to be recognized in the law.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Encourage USDA agencies to provide technical assistance. The administrative responsibility for the RC&D Program is delegated to NRCS with the expectation that full array of USDA programs and services are available to assist RC&D councils to achieve their goals.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we request that the farm bill include legislative language that encourages USDA agencies, consistent with their mission and authority, to bolster these relationships. RC&D councils are an effective delivery system for rural America, and we see no need to duplicate the RC&D concept to create new programs or entities to deliver services to rural America.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cantu appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF J. READ SMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, ST. JOHN, WA
Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am very pleased and honored to have travelled across our country to be with you here today.
I am currently president of the National Association of Conservation Districts, but, more importantly today, I am here as a farmer and a rancher and a conservation district official. I was elected 28 years ago to serve in my conservation district in eastern Washington, and I have proudly worked for that period of time implementing the programs that your committee authorizes. I am very proud of that.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would refer you to my written testimony and ask that that be included in the record, and for specific comments and recommendations on existing programs, I would refer you to that written testimony.
I want to visit with you today about a new vision, a new approach that the Nation's conservation districts have for the conservation title of the farm bill.
We have attempted, since 1985, to solve our problems by creating programs. We have developed programs after programs that, wonderful as they are, they tended to make smaller pieces out of an ever-shrinking pie. I am here today to suggest that what we need to perhaps do, look at a new vision. We need to change the process from finding programs that will solve our conservation problems to developing conservation plans and then seeking the programs that will solve those problems, a complete reversal of what we are doing now.
Unfortunately, many of the plans that we are currently operating with down on the farm where I live are generic, computer-generated, impersonal, with no buy-in by the farmers and ranchers that implement them. We need to get back to the self-directed hometown plans that are written site-specific and then find the resources in order to solve the problems that we have.
We have developed over the last 2 years a conservation incentives program that would do just that. They are based on the strong philosophies conservation districts across the country have of voluntary, incentive-based and locally led. We need to include the local conservation districts and State agencies and the States in the decision-making process in implementing these programs at the local level.
We have spent nearly 2 years developing our recommendations for this committee. During that time, we have reached out to the 3,000 districts across the Nation and got input from nearly 1,700 of those districts. Included in our reach-out was over 90 different groups that are interested and have weighed in in the past on the conservation title of the farm bill. We had nearly 50 of these organizations respond to us, and we were very amazed to find out that most all of these groups had very similar concerns to some of ours. We have responded to those folks by including some of their thoughts along with ours, and hopefully we have developed a comprehensive package that is very favorable to a wide audience here in town.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clearly, this will take a significant increase in both financial assistance and the technical assistance, and that is the scientists, the economists, the engineers and so on, conservationists, to carry out this new vision.
The recent workload analysis indicated that there is a need out there for $2.4 billion worth of technical assistance that is being unmet. So we recognize the huge investment that the country must make in this, but certainly we would like to see the committee prioritize that investment and at least get initially started along the way.
Our program and our vision will reach out to far more producers than existing legislation. We need to cover more acres, more people and reach out to the entire country, not just selected commodities or groups, and our vision will go a long ways towards doing that. It will provide flexibility and local control.
Certainly we need to have Federal guidelines for implementing these types of programs, but we have a huge pool of over 7,500 State and local employees that work day-to-day with our Federal partners, and we need to utilize this wonderful resource, and together we can build a program that will solve the natural resource problems on private land.
There is huge public benefit in what we do. We need to learn to tell the public what is in it for them—and certainly the public is very understanding about the investments that's necessary in order to achieve these goals—better soil, cleaner water, greater profits and a brighter future for agriculture, in addition to abundant wildlife, higher quality wetlands and really an enhanced quality of life for all Americans. And the investment and prevention is far cheaper than the cost for solving the problems later.
I would welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Hampton.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF JOE HAMPTON, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION, ENID, OK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION
Mr. HAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Joe Neal Hampton; and I am president of the Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association. I appear today on behalf of our association, 14 other State and regional grain and feed associations and the National Grain and Feed Association. We represent over 4,000 grain and feed-related firms who are the farmers' first customer beyond the farm gate. I ask that our testimony be referred to, entered into the record.
My oral testimony today will ask this subcommittee to ensure that the new conservation title to the new farm bill will be targeted towards the conservation needs of all sectors of agriculture.
We all want a rural America and an agriculture industry that has as little environmental impact as possible on our land and water resources but also want an economically strong rural America. Current and new conservation programs must be tailored to help producers meet their environmental responsibilities, while ensuring that producers and the rest of rural America remain economically viable.
In keeping with this view, we would like to recommend four things: First, that the CRP's current acreage of 36.4 million acres be retained and not increased; second, that any new acreage enrolled to CRP be focused on filter strips and partial field enrollment.
I would like to cite a USDA Agricultural Research Service study that was done in Oklahoma a few years ago that indicated that a mere 66-foot-wide vegetation filter strip can capture 60 to 90 percent of the nutrient runoff from the field. The larger the filter strip, the more nutrient runoff it captures; and in my mind that is a great value for the taxpayer, to protect our water with a simple vegetative filter strip.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Anyway, we believe that these resources are much better focused on CRP rather than whole farm enrollments which have a detrimental effect on the rural economy. We support earlier testimony by livestock groups that recommend working lands be kept working.
Thirdly, that Congress and the administration minimize the number of counties that reach the maximum limit of 25 percent of tillable acreage, again to preserve the viability of rural economy.
And, fourth, more emphasis to be given to conservation programs such as the EQIP program for all types of agriculture production, including animal feeding operations, and that the EQIP funding process be streamlined and somehow made more directly accessible to producers.
As a side note, I and several other of my producer friends have been trying for 5 years to figure out a way to get terrace and waterway funds to build and reconstruct, and it is a very difficult process, and we like the old program where you knew you had some money to be able to go and get that cost share.
One thing the conservation programs were never meant to do, and they cannot do, and that is to impact commodity prices over the long term. For many years, the United States attempted to do this through high loan rates and idling acres programs, but the result was this lost market share, decreased exports without any long-term price benefit, simply because foreign acreage replaced ours. From 1980 to 1995, while we were idling 33 million acres, our foreign competitors brought on line 49 million acres and in the top 19 wheat-producing States in the United States account for over half of the current CRP acres.
We have witnessed a substantial increase in the amount of imported wheat and a loss of global market share during the same time, and our wheat export market share has dropped from 40 to 25 percent. Now, while CRP is not the sole factor for this cause, it is certainly a contributing factor.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural economies are hard hit by land idling, including places where CRP is high. Congressman Lucas, in Shattuck, Oklahoma, in your district, since the CRP was implemented, 23 businesses have closed, which represents 25 percent of the local economy. And the population has decreased by half during the same time period.
Acreage idling also erects barriers to young farmers. When the Government is essentially competing to be a tenant, young producers cannot have access to enough acres to spread their fixed costs over enough acres. Also, the average age of producers in Oklahoma is 60 years of age; and what America needs is more young farmers and not programs that serve as retirement benefits for absentee landlords.
I will be free to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hampton appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. That might be a good point to begin with a question or two on, since you bring up CRP and the effect in rural western areas like northwest Oklahoma, Joe Neal. This is not the first time that we have had programs with a major land idling provision in them. Forty some years ago, the old soil bank of the 1950's and 1960's had some similar provisions, perhaps not quite as much of a focus on soil and water and wildlife, but nonetheless idling of the land. Your institutional memory being what it is, how did that affect, if it did affect, rural America in comparison to what CRP has done now?
Mr. HAMPTON. I think it had the same effect, in that when you idle the acres, especially when you are talking about wheat and it is such a global commodity, that if we are not going to do it, somebody else can be able to pick up those acres and provide the wheat for the people that want to buy it.
Mr. LUCAS. And it is fair to say, isn't it, Joe Neal, that you are not advocating not idling environmentally sensitive acres? You are talking about the effect of wholesale programs.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMPTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LUCAS. Let me address this question to the whole panel. As you heard me comment upon in my opening remarks, customarily the Agriculture Committee for the last 50 years has struggled with trying to come up with enough resources to do all of the things that we have a responsibility for; and this year this farm bill will be no exception to the needs of commodity producers and the needs of conservation efforts, also.
Should all conservation programs be required to be leveraged or matched by State resources? And the concept behind that is to make the dollars stretch farther. Are there any feelings out there among the panel? Anyone?
Mr. CANTU. Mr. Chairman, this is Joe Cantu. I would definitely say that I think that that would be an approach that we should go after, sought after. I believe that the responsibility of this whole conservation effort should be shared by all Federal and also State levels.
Mr. LUCAS. Anyone else?
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, if I might, my colleagues have discussed this issue as well, and we are still discussing it. I didn't sense any opposition to that.
I would point out, in our State, we have done a needs assessment of three river basins that need TMDLs for high-priority areas. That total is over $200 million. We have some money in our State, but we don't have $200 million.
So I think folks are willing to step up to the plate, but it is going to take larger resources. And I would point out, as I did in my oral statement, that the Congress has provided money for small communities to put in wastewater treatment facilities to meet public goals, and I don't see this as any different. And perhaps we can get folks outside of agriculture to see it that way. They might be more willing to fund those programs.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, there are many States today that are making very sizable investments in conservation. I am sure you are very well aware of the programs that States are sharing with the Federal Government, and there is no question in my mind if a requirement was to be developed for cost sharing and sharing, leveraging dollars, that you would see an increase in the investment that States are giving conservation. So I would certainly encourage that as an option, and I think that States will recognize and step up right away.
Mr. LUCAS. Changing subjects for just a moment, Mr. Cantu, the committee, of course, has an appreciation for the RC&D's efforts around the country, but could you expand for a moment on how your concept works, the councils work, in regard to their relationships with State government and the NRCS?
Mr. CANTU. Mr. Chairman, we partner with many different organizations to be able to achieve the goals of our efforts. We partner strongly with the saltwater conservation districts such as in Texas with Texas Rural Development councils and with anyone else, Forest Service, whoever we can, to make sure that we deliver our set goals.
One of our concepts is the uniqueness of RC&D carries across the board into many different areas other than just conservation of resources, and so we take advantage of whatever partnerships we can to make sure that we can deliver.
Mr. LUCAS. With that, I turn to Mrs. Clayton for any questions she might have.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Adams, in your testimony you make reference to increasing and giving some flexibility to the agricultural stewardship program, increasing probably the limitations. I was just wondering how you would fashion that so that either we wouldn't have too many eligible people?
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ADAMS. You are speaking of EQIP, ma'am?
Mrs. CLAYTON. Right.
Ms. ADAMS. In our State we set up priority areas by the State Technical Committee. I can say personally the desire to raise the national cap comes from the fact that perhaps a thousand head feedyard in Michigan is large, but in Kansas it is not the size of feedyard that a family would have. And we see in our State, and my colleague from South Dakota calls them betweeners, and those are the folks that are really in the business as a family and can't get cost share, because they have to be fairly large to support that family. So we would target based on priority watersheds within a State. So it would vary depending on the State that you are in and the priorities that they have set.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So Kansas would be different from Michigan, and Michigan would be different from North Carolina.
Ms. ADAMS. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. CLAYTON. And the States themselves would make that decision.
Ms. ADAMS. I would see it as we have discussed within NASDA. It would take many different forms, but I think we would definitely agree with the conservation districts that it would have a local component with stakeholders at the table designing the program, because that is how you make changes. You are changing people's habits and you have to change their heart and their mind in order to make a difference, and you can't do that by shoving it down their throat. You have to have them at the table to help make the decisions.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I agree with you that we do have to have the consultation and everybody around the table, but the allocation based on the size seems to put a little bit in contradiction of making those resources available for smaller farmers. If you want to raise the cap, if you have a limited pot of money and—we don't have an unlimited pot of money. So raising the cap, you are either going to give more to fewer if you have relatively the same pot of money. I am just trying to find how would you fashion an equitable proposal, even if you did it in the individual States, that would allow for us to be responsive to smaller farmers with smaller plots of land.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ADAMS. I think my testimony outlines the problem we face in our State. Many of our small producers don't take advantage of it because they can't make the capital investment. EQIP only covers the waste treatment system. It doesn't cover the bunks, the pens and everything else that goes along with that.
And we have a little saying on the northeast part of our State. They are called second-year good-year workers. They are part-time farmers, and they need to make changes, but they can't take advantage of the program as it currently exists, because they want to engineer a Cadillac, when maybe a Chevy would do.
So I don't think raising the cap necessarily takes money away from small producers. I think the program has problems as it is when it comes to allowing small producers to participate.
In our State specifically our greatest need is where our smallest producers are, but we feel that there are those in the West who do deserve to have an opportunity for those funds who may exceed the thousand animal unit limitation.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So for raising the cap without damaging the opportunity for the small farmers.
Now, what would you recommend that we could suggest to make this rule amenable to smaller farmers, since they are pushing down a Cadillac and they need a Chevrolet or a Ford or whatever? So what would you recommend that we should consider to make it more assessable and usable to smaller farmers?
Ms. ADAMS. I think the block grant proposal that NASDA has brought forward would take care of a lot of those problems. But I think the fact that the guidelines are set in Washington, that the State conservationists feels like they have to follow the guidelines of Washington, doesn't allow them to consider simple things like shelter belts and alternative water supplies to get cattle off of cricks. So I think there are easy ways to solve the problem, but it is just that the guidelines of the problem don't allow the money to be present on those less-engineered activities.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Well, let me move to the Resource Conservation and Development Council.
How are you currently funded now? Are you in the Conservation Program, sir?
Mr. CANTU. We are funded through USDA, administered through NRCS.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Right. I am working with some of our council and we are trying to expand our councils to our State because we think you provide a terrific service, and similar to Mr. Smith said, that it involves volunteers, and so you can amass the technical assistance, working with the county commissioners and the natural resources. But there was a question raised to me about funding, and I thought there might have been a question not to the amount, but where it was placed. Is there any concern about that?
Mr. CANTU. Not to my knowledge. When you are talking about funding with RC&D, our Federal funding is discretionary funding through USDA, but what we have a strong reputation for is being able to leverage funding, which we normally do once a county committee comes up with a project, then we look for sources of funding.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Right.
Mr. CANTU. And those sources of funding are normally——
Mrs. CLAYTON. I think what it was, it was that when you begin to look at—how many are there now?
Mr. CANTU. There are 348 councils across America.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Right. That they were fearful that the cap was going to prevent any expansion of those. And we looked at North Carolina. We are looking at our State, and we find that we are not equally served by the council. So I think the fear was that, as we were looking at the farm bill, we wouldn't prevent the opportunity for those parts of the country that were not served by this. Because we had some gaps in our area.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I just wanted to speak to that and maybe have another round, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This would be a question addressed to any or all of you. I am very interested in EQIP, because the livestock industry, as far as conservation is concerned, I think what I have heard would focus more on EQIP more than any other single entity that the Federal Government is involved with. And I know some of you have mentioned some changes you would like to see, and I would like to have you review specifically what changes in EQIP you would advocate and what level of funding. I think some of you talked to a higher dollar amount, so if we could be little bit more specific, I would appreciate that. Again, anyone who wants to answer.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I will go first.
We have communicators from very specific recommendations on EQIP within the past year, and I am very happy to share at least the highlight of our recommendations with you today.
I think there is unanimous agreement that we need to increase the funding substantially. It has been woefully inadequate. In fact, I have unfortunately some personal experience in being turned down on a number of occasions with EQIP contracts, and it has seen a tremendous amount of our field staff time being taken up developing contracts that are never funded. We are recommending that we increase EQIP funding to $1 billion annually. The need is far greater than that, and that certainly would go a long ways towards helping.
We would like to see a removal of the prohibition of expenditures being made in the same fiscal year as a contract's execution. The start-up costs and so on are hampering, particularly, small, limited-resource producers. It would be very helpful if there was an annual practices component within the EQIP program. Certainly not all producers and ranchers need elaborate 19-year contracts, and that would be very beneficial to the overall program.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think the last strong recommendation we would have is to remove the requirement of 19-year contract and look at something less than 10 when that is appropriate.
So those are our major recommendations.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Any others have any comments on EQIP?
Ms. ADAMS. Congressman, we would also advocate removing the national size limit for those producers that can participate and also allowing for activities other than engineered activities that get the job done to be allowed for cost sharing.
Mr. OSBORNE. Do you see technical assistance being a problem in EQIP as well as other conservation programs?
Mr. SMITH. Technical assistance has been a problem in conservation in every program. We are all very concerned about programs like EQIP and having the adequate technical assistance. Many times that is actually preventing contracts from being implemented. So I would certainly urge the committee to make certain that the technical assistance for all of these programs, particular programs like EQIP, have the necessary technical assistance to make sure that they get implemented.
Mr. HAMPTON. Congressman Osborne, I serve on our State Technical Committee, and the regulation, which is very complex, needs to be streamlined more and gotten back to the local level. It is just very difficult for the farmers, especially the small ones, to be able to access funds to build waterways, to clean out their waterways, to prepare their terraces and build new terraces because of a complexity of the regulations of the program.
As I said, I have visited with many, many farmers, and I have yet to find anybody who has been able to access simply fixing their terraces and getting their waterways cleaned out. There has been some larger, complex issue that needs to be streamlined. Thank you.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I might just comment that when you are talking about one bill, Henry, you are talking annually for EQIP? One of the problems we will be faced with is I believe that the amount of money that is currently in the budget for agriculture over the next 10 years is something in the range of $170 billion, which is $17 billion annually, is what it averages out to. Coming up with $1 billion for EQIP alone may be difficult, but I certainly agree with you that it is a very critical program, and we need to do a better job with it.
Thank you. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Baldacci.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing and to the panel for giving their testimony.
Just a couple of questions. I will start with Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith, it looks like your request for increases in the conservation programs funded with mandatory spending out of the Commodity Credit Corporation adds up to about $1.7 billion per year. I was wondering if you assumed that various forestry programs would remain as discretionary programs that require annual appropriations, or would they be funded with mandatory funding?
Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that those programs are not funded currently within the USDA budgets within the Appropriation's Subcommittee on Agriculture, and we work with VA-HUD on the Forest Service appropriations, and certainly I we think that that's where those expenditures should remain, and maybe I didn't understand your question.
Mr. BALDACCI. Well, it is just whether they remain as discretionary or mandatory funding.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I think it is totally separate from the mandatory CCC funding that we are talking about for these USDA programs.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BALDACCI. Well, I think it is very important that forestry be part of the element when we talk about conservation programs and that the same level of assistance and commitment is provided to both when we are going ahead with the development of this particular title under the farm bill.
I would like to, first of all, thank the State of Kansas and their agriculture secretary for their testimony, because I really appreciate and like the idea of trying to develop a flexible block grant to the States. I know from your testimony it was kind of a work in progress, and there is not a final document yet, but what are some of the guidelines that you think ought to be part of that proposal?
Ms. ADAMS. It is fairly well along, and I have it from staff that it will be released in the next 2 or 3 weeks.
But the basic tenets of our program are that, first, it would be a block grant, as you have said, with the Department of Agriculture in each State being the lead agency in designing the program. It would also be based on local input in the local buy-in that the NACDs have talked about.
Second, we want to recognize all enhancements that protect land, water, air and wildlife in a very broad kind of way, so that if taking care of critical habitat is important in Wyoming but water quality is important in northeast Kansas we can take care of those issues in our States and spend that money on the issues that we see are needed in our States.
Third, as Congressman Osborne pointed out, there is a need for technical assistance, and we would ask that there be some flexibility there to allow the locals to decide how much goes to payments and how much goes to technical assistance. I do know as an administrator of an agency it is always often hard for legislators to accept that there is some administrative overhead and there are people. I mean, all the money in the world for programs doesn't do you any good if you don't have people to help farmers put it on the ground.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, we would agree with everyone on the panel that we need voluntary incentive-based programs, and they should have measurable results. And I think you can see measurable results as long as you understand that it won't happen overnight.
It is kind of like losing weight. You don't gain it overnight, and you don't lose it overnight, that you will see progress. We have seen progress in our State, but we started a decade ago. So as long as we remember that, I think that you can put performance measures on these activities, as long as you allow the process to play it out.
Then, finally, we are concerned and would suggest that individual producer privacy and data confidentiality be a part of that program as well.
Mr. BALDACCI. I have seen some of those commercials on weight, though, that it makes it look a lot easier than it really is, and I am sure that we are not advocating those kinds of efforts.
Then, looking at the Federal budget and recognizing the limitations that we have on the Federal budget, I think that it is going to be imperative that we have much more efficient Federal, State, local conservation district relationships in order to maximize those resources; and I would like to work with you and your association as you develop further on that.
Mr. Chairman, just in closing my questioning, I think that you all recognize on the financial front that we have got a backlog on EQIP. We have got a backlog on CRP programs. I think we have got a commitment to fill that backlog.
At the same time, I think it is going to be imperative to address these conservation issues, because we know that we need the assistance and the development in these particular areas. And I have always felt that in agriculture that we have always been asked to do an awful lot more in agriculture in terms of the environmental and conservation ethics. And I think those are important. And I want to continue those efforts, but I don't think that we have got a fair apportionment of the resources in some of the other environmental agencies for the Department of Agriculture. So I really would like to see if we couldn't be able to, within the budget constraints, be able to allocate more by developing a much more efficient, seamless relationship. All the way from Federal to local, and at the same time being able to put some additional resources.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Good point, Mr. Baldacci.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Jamie Clover Adams, our Secretary of Agriculture, for being here and for her testimony and to commend Kansas during your tenure and during our governor's time in office of I think focusing lots of resources on environmental and conservation issues, particularly water quality.
I also would thank you personally. I think you have been a great advocate for Kansas farmers and ranchers, and I have not had that opportunity to say that either personally or publicly. So I appreciate your presence here, but I appreciate what you do in our State on behalf of farmers and ranchers and especially on behalf of the conservation and environmental kinds of issues that we face in our State.
It does appear to me that your testimony suggests that you prefer expansion and improvement of our current Federal programs as compared to a wholesale, radical change in the way that we deliver conservation services in Washington with, perhaps, the exception of adding the block grant program. Is that an accurate summary of your sentiments?
Ms. ADAMS. That is accurate, sir.
Mr. MORAN. I used the last hearing we had to talk about legislation that I have introduced that I think you have seen. As I read your testimony, the legislation that a number of us have introduced seems to me to be very compatible with your testimony, perhaps with the exception of we put a pilot program in for CRP, and it seems to me that it in some ways is the same kind of thing you are suggesting, only at a State level, to allow greater flexibility decisions being made at home. And I think I agree with Mr. Baldacci that that is an interesting concept that we ought to look at. So I thank you for you and your Association's point of view.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What Federal programs in this area are most important to Kansas producers and most important to our environment at home?
Ms. ADAMS. Existing programs?
Mr. MORAN. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. ADAMS. I think both the continuous CRP for buffer strips, as well as EQIP.
As you are aware, there are a lot of small producers who are still running cattle on the streams, and that is causing some problem. If we were able to work with those folks and give them some assistance, perhaps provide a higher match, they would be able to move their animals off the streams.
I was out in Phillips County last summer, and there was a gentleman who had moved about 800 head off the crick, and that that EQIP, as you are aware, only paid for the waste treatment system but had nice new bunks and pens. We were chatting, and he took me out on the weeds to look at the lagoon. He said, I didn't do this for me. I did this for my grandson. And I think that is what we need to remember. As Joe Neal talked about, we need to get young people in agriculture, and the way to do that is to help their families stay in the business so they can pass it on.
Mr. MORAN. In deference to the chairman from Oklahoma and my friend, Mr. Osborne, from Nebraska, there is no State that has more cattle than Kansas, and I assume that changes in EQIP would be maybe our top priority, and I would ask you, where should we focus? And this was somewhat Mrs. Clayton's focus, is where should we focus? The smaller operators? The larger operators? It seems to me there are lots of challenges out there. Is there a size relationship between where those challenges are?
Ms. ADAMS. I think, Congressman, when you look at the data from our State, I think we need to look at where the environmental problems are. The fact that in the northeast corner of the State, lives 60 or 70 percent of the population and they get their drinking water from surface water, that is the place to start. If there are issues with other contaminations and other——
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Regardless of whether they are small operators or large operators, it is where the consequences are the greatest.
Ms. ADAMS. Exactly and where you can show improvement.
I think the way we sell these programs to urban folks is to show them that there is progress being made; and, well, you do that by not putting it in because the rules say you put it in but because it is going to make a difference in the environment. And I think that is how you prioritize where are your problems and what is the best way to take care of them.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Hampton, you mentioned the grass strips on terraces, as did Ms. Clover Adams. We have struggled with this issue for a long time. Continuous sign-up was available. The Department of Agriculture took that opportunity away. Through efforts, we added language into an appropriation bill in which we reinstated continuous CRP sign-up. The Department of Agriculture was not very happy in that regard. I mean, it has been a struggle to make continuous CRP sign-up on those terraces happen. Are things OK now? Is the Department of Agriculture performing to the degree that we think they should in this regard?
Mr. HAMPTON. I cannot address that particular point. I have no knowledge of that. But you are correct about the past. It just seems that the benefit of a grass strip for removing so much nutrients before it goes into our rivers and streams, it is just a great program; and we need to be able to utilize that as much as we can.
Mr. MORAN. The past Department of Agriculture has, I don't know whether to call it philosophical difficulties with this issue, because they believed that they were paying for the terrace, and it is a double payment if they then allowed landowners to receive the benefit for paying for the grass. It seems to me that the benefit are exceptional, both from a water quality but from a wildlife habitat. It is just an important program, but if anybody has any thoughts about whether or not USDA is complying with the congressional directives to make continuous CRP sign-up work, I would like to know, particularly if they are not.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. THOMPSON. No questions.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Putnam?
Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am also going to pursue a couple of questions about the flexible block grant. Do you think that there ought to be some special consideration for States that are on the cutting edge of developing their own conservation programs? Do you think that there should be a matching program for States to encourage more partnerships, and what are your thoughts on developing those?
Ms. ADAMS. I don't know that I would give special consideration for cutting-edge programs. I think that we should allocate the dollars. We are looking at working with some models on some various ways to distribute funds under the program as we have talked about it. But I think that we need to provide resources not only to States that are moving ahead like our State, like New York and New Jersey and many other States, but we also need to help those who maybe haven't had the resources to make things happen the way they need to.
As far as the match would go, we have discussed that amongst the members of NASDA. I didn't sense any opposition to that, but we are still in discussion on that concept.
Mr. PUTNAM. Well, that's essentially the same thing. I mean, if you are recognizing States who contribute matching dollars, then you are giving them special consideration over a State who does not make it as much of a priority.
Ms. ADAMS. I didn't think about it that way, but you are correct.
Mr. PUTNAM. Are you aware of, through your communication with your other State secretaries and commissioners of agriculture, of other success stories, that maybe their State has punished or penalized in the Federal dollars because of rules that the States have, or is there a need for us to be able to recognize the State programs that are out there and prevent those types of problems from happening?
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ADAMS. I think performance is the issue. If it is a program that is working and the environment is getting cleaner, we have better habitat, that should be the measure, not whether or not it meets guidelines A, B, C and D. So I don't know that there needs to be any special treatment given, as long as there is no hindrance to moving forward with programs that really make a difference.
Mr. PUTNAM. Does your State have a resource conservation agreement-type scenario, a less than perpetual conservation easement purchase or development rights purchase program?
Ms. ADAMS. That has not been used in our State. If you know the geography, we just don't really have the urban centers that would make that a priority in our State.
Mr. PUTNAM. For some of the other members of the panel, USDA testified in a previous hearing that their use of outside vendors was virtually nil. What are your thoughts on the use of outside vendors, and to what degree do you think that the farm bill will need to reflect an emphasis on using outside vendors to take the load off some of the technical assistance aspects?
Mr. SMITH. I think, as time goes on, we are going to see a much greater use of—we will call it third-party vendors—in applying conservation or in developing conservation. What we need to do is develop a mechanism for compensating them. Right now, if there is any compensation for these folks, it comes out of the pocket of a landowner or an operator, in lieu of perhaps some technical assistance from the Federal Government or from the State or local governments that might be pro bono.
So as the demand for technical assistance increases, as the supply of qualified folks from the Government to provide that assistance goes down, the gap continues to widen. And I think that we need to prepare ourselves for how to handle this growing group of third-party vendors that will provide those types of services.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PUTNAM. So do you think that a scenario where the NRCS would certify a private land manager who could then draw up the technical assistance plans and that would be sort of a de facto approval by that outside vendor, would that not have the effect of reducing the backlog and saving the Government money on personnel?
Mr. SMITH. I know for a fact that is actually happening in some States right now. I know my own State of Washington currently has some outside engineers that are working within State and local areas but are being certified through the Federal engineers. So I think we are going to see that type of—and I would say that that is probably a very appropriate role for the Federal component to take, would be to provide the standards and the guidance and the certification required for perhaps third-party vendors to proceed.
Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Clover, in your testimony—I am sorry. I wasn't here. I was tied up. But in the WHIP program, you recommended that we apparently rejigger the formula so that it carries out voluntary critical habitat enhancement. What is critical habitat?
Ms. ADAMS. As I understand it, under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife when a species is listed as threatened or endangered, and then it is up to the landowner to provide that habitat, and we would just ask that that activity perhaps be a focus of the WHIP program. I know in our State we just had an endangered species listed, and a great number of acres along the Arkansas River that are designated as critical habitat for the Arkansas Shiner that our folks are going to have to deal with.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. So they would take and reallocate a lot of this money into trying to deal with the Endangered Species Act? Is that what you are basically saying?
Ms. ADAMS. That is as I understand——
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. That would take a lot of money, unless we change the Endangered Species Act.
Anyway, the testimony from Mr. Hampton on CRP—again, I am sorry I missed your testimony, but you don't look like you are a big fan of big track CRP, from what I can tell from your testimony.
Mr. HAMPTON. No, I am not.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Is that accurate? I just have to, I think, take issue with some of your conclusions that somehow or another that people are putting land into CRP is why there is less wheat production, which is what I surmise from glancing over your testimony. I don't know what it is in the rest of the country but in my part of the world the only reason those farmers are still in the area is because they had a chance to go into CRP because they cannot make money growing wheat, period. And that is the reality.
Up north, we don't have an alternative for wheat. So CRP has been a savior for us. It has been a good thing for the environment, for wildlife. We up in our part of the world think we ought to have more of it, not less of it. So I just wanted to put that on the record.
I also have to really take issue with the fact—it was kind of implied that somehow or another this had something to do with bringing in more imports. I would argue that it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going to happen when we signed the NAFTA agreement with Canada, and if they get rid of their Canadian Wheat Board, you ain't seen nothing yet for the kinds of wheat and barley that is going to come in from Canada, because we have opened up the border, basically.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I mean, I think I could see some of your argument, but I think a lot of what is happening in wheat and barley is, in my opinion, is more of what is going around in this world market and all of this free trade that we have gotten involved in. And I really hope that people will really take a look at this free trade with America situation. If any of you that haven't been to South America, we are asking for trouble, it seems to me, if we get into another kind of dole with them like we did with NAFTA.
On the CRP, up in my part of the world and some other areas that I have been, we have been having problems with trying to deal with the kind of rigid regulations that have been put in place. I have been out hunting on CRP land where they are going to have to plow it up because in order for them to get enough points to get into the CRP again, they have got to plow it up and plant this seed mix that is required, and in a lot of these areas, it is not going to grow, and so we are going to take perfectly good CRP and destroy it, and we are going to replant it with something that is not going to work and have a mess, and there is no mechanism under the current situation for us to deal with that.
Now, some of you have talked about having flexibility at the State level. I am not sure that is even far enough down the chain. I think maybe the county level. Do you support giving us some flexibility so we can make the CRP fit the local situation?
Mr. SMITH. Well, I would very much support your suggestion, and we have commented and included in our testimony that that is a perfect example of a Federal program that needs to have flexibility at the local level. And it is the districts across America's suggestion that these are the kinds of decisions that would be better made at the local level.
But keep in mind that in order to be accepted in the CRP program an operator had to agree to do those things. And the problem probably is not the selected varieties of grass required, although that is a problem. The problem is far greater than that in that we need to take a look at how that whole program was designed with the environmental benefits index and develop a program that truly reflects the benefit to the environment and start the redesign from the top down and then allow the flexibility at the local level.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. I believe that concludes the first round. Mrs. Clayton indicated that she might have some additional questions.
Mrs. CLAYTON. My questions were answered. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Any other members have any additional questions?
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, you know, the need for responding to regulatory requirements on agriculture producers, both by States and what has come down the pike from the Federal Government, we hear the need for work in areas that encourage conservation tillage and basic technical services. As we fashion funding and the tough decisions that we are going to be making, how do you propose we balance that sort of a consideration to provide the technical assistance that is needful and yet the regulation says imposed?
Mr. SMITH. We have worked ourselves into a bit of a problem with the allocation of dollars for conservation, as I am sure the committee is probably more aware than any of us. An extraordinary amount of the percentage is going towards land retirement right now; and, unfortunately, a smaller percentage is going towards our working lands.
I think we need to take a hard look at that mix, and certainly I am a strong supporter of all those programs included in the retirement category, but we are woefully underfunded on things like technical assistance on our working lands, and the best defense that those of us that are on the farm have against the environmental pressure that is increasing daily is to be accountable. We all want to be accountable. We want to do the things that are right.
And I don't have to tell the committee the state of the economics in agriculture, but our folks out on the farms and ranches across the country desperately need help. We need the technical assistance, we need these incentives on our working lands, and I would hope that the committee could take a look at the balance and try to redirect some funds or find whatever way you can, additional dollars, to help those producers on the working lands and allow them to be accountable to the public, which is what we all want to do.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PHELPS. So essentially, if I hear you right, maybe look at some of the requirements, the environmental requirements and loosen up some of those that make it tough? We are trying to stretch the funding. How do we address both of those extremes?
Mr. SMITH. I am not suggesting that we loosen up any regulations that are necessary. What I am saying is we need to provide the incentives so those of us out there can make the right decisions and do what is right.
If we have got the input at the local level to make sure that what we are suggesting or requiring is economically feasible and locally accepted, those of us out there will gladly implement these things with some help. What happens is when you get Federal mandates which make no sense down at the county levels is where we run into some of our problems. And you need to safeguard against having regulations required that make no sense locally. But, I mean, we all want to do what is right.
Mr. PHELPS. Can you give me an example of just one?
Mr. SMITH. Well, I think you just heard the example on requiring a species of grass that doesn't fit the area. Those are the types of examples that we need to do, the conservation incentives program. We need to make certain that the funding levels, the requirements and those thresholds are set locally so that our folks down at the county levels can make certain that what they are doing is appropriate and the right thing to do.
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
A couple of quick questions, and we will thank the panel for your efforts.
Mr. Smith, in your comments, you mentioned in the proposal that an extra billion dollars for EQIP, and I think the way the written testimony was worded, with 20 percent of that being set aside for technical assistance, how would your proposal assure that the personnel would be available to write those EQIP plans? Would it specify that the NRCS chief assign so many people to do nothing but write EQIP plans during a fiscal year? How would you address that in the concept? Because we have talked about the shortages of personnel and resources and how we meet the needs that exist, let alone putting more resources in to meet those needs.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Those are really difficult questions, and as we allocate EQIP dollars across the country, I think the problem is finding the proper allocation formula for making sure that the dollars are going where the problems are. And we heard it earlier that we don't want to attack our problems with programs. We need to find out where the problems are and develop plans that will solve those problems.
EQIP is a perfect example. I know that the NRCS would be thrilled to adequately provide the technical assistance for EQIP if it was adequately funded. The problem is, I am not sure the 19 or 20 percent, the way the program is designed right now, is adequate. And I think with EQIP, for example, that is probably the problem, because there is no mechanism for the time a contract isn't accepted is paid for. It requires a tremendous amount of time from a conservationist to develop an unfunded contract, and who pays that bill when the contract isn't even signed?
So I think these could all be fixed if we can make some changes within that program to streamline that so we minimize particularly the time that is required in an unsuccessful contract. And those things can all be fixed if we can all get together and do what is right.
Mr. LUCAS. My next question I would, I suppose, primarily direct to Secretary Adams but to the whole panel. I spent 5 1/2 years in the State legislature before I came to Congress 7 years ago, so I have worked through the priority setting process in State government and have a huge fondness for both State government and local government.
But let me ask this question of you all in the concept of either block grants or moving more of these resources and concept programs to the local level. How would we determine the local conservation priorities would be met within States, communities, whatever? Sometimes State legislatures have a unique concept about how things are to be done and should be done and do in their conference committees make decisions that are amazing even at home. How do we, if we go down this route, make sure those priorities are properly addressed with those Federal dollars we would be sending?
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ADAMS. I think one thing is to hold folks accountable and have performance measures. At least in our State—and I get the sense from my colleagues in other parts of the country that the reason and the way that States are stepping in is because of mandates from other laws, like the Clean Water Act, like the Endangered Species Act and other acts such as that. And if the State legislatures somehow try to circumvent the use of that money, the landowner is the one who is going to pay the price in the end. So I think there is some incentive there to be accountable.
I also think the contract I have with vendors with my agency is there is accountability, and if you are not accountable, you don't get the money. And I think that is very, very important when it comes to taxpayer dollars. We have to show results. As long as they understand that it is not going to be tomorrow, that it might be 5 or 10 years down the road, but everybody is better off.
Mr. LUCAS. Every one of you sitting at table has had some involvement or dealings with the Federal Government or Federal programs. My follow-up question to that is how do we make sure that USDA doesn't shift staff away from current programs to oversee and implement these kind of concepts, reshuffling the eggs, yet fewer things are done with real producers out in the field?
And, oh, by the way, I love those legislators who are drawing my congressional district lines right now in Oklahoma, for the record. Brilliant people.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think that the answer is as we develop these programs, which have far-reaching impacts from the Federal level clear down to the local level, we need to develop a procedure that will create some Federal guidelines and keep the States and the counties and the districts within certain parameters, and then at that level create a second set of parameters that will allow continued flexibility as you go down the chain, keeping the vision that you would have here within the committee and allowing for the flexibility at the State and the local level to carry out that vision.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. I do have another question.
Mr. LUCAS. Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I said I didn't have, but now I do have. A couple of comments that the Chair made made me think about the discussion.
The accountability and the coordination and the oversight all are related, and we try to find out how we don't be constraining and allow for some flexibility. But I sit as the ranking democrat on the oversight committee, and the allocations of dollars to EQIP, who used it, how it was used, you cannot have that unless there is some understanding about that. Just as the State has oversight, if the Federal dollars going out has oversight—and I know when the State allocate their dollars, they have oversight to local governments. So it is with local governments to agencies. I don't think you are not suggesting that you don't have some oversight or accountability, but you want the maximum flexibility within that, and I understand that. And that to me almost is complete discretion. But we have to have guidelines for the utilization of those resources.
The other point I wanted to make is that in our environmental laws as they are changing and become more demanding, as consumers become more discrete in and demanding in what they eat and how we grow and produce that, they are also doing that in other industries, not just food, but in agriculture. We find ourselves meeting it in several ways, not only in the end product of processing but in the production of it where Ms. Adams talked about the livestock being close to our body of waters. In my State, we have large hog farms which indeed impact on it.
So you also begin to have environmental laws coming from other agencies that also impact the farmers or local units of government, and I know the natural resources staff has been working. I know in our State that is the case. If you add to that a calamity that may happen to happen, a storm or a drought, and now you are having to coordinate with different agencies and implement all these programs we have here, there is a point as how many programs can we efficiently and responsibly allocate and how should our coordination be.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I just want to make the observation there is a staff resource and capacity resource in our ability to really implement what we put on books. So we just shouldn't check which can put the program dollars out there without some accountability. And we can't do those well unless we coordinate with other agencies that have some overlapping responsibility, rather, the State or the Federal agencies as well.
Now, that wasn't a question. It was a comment.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mrs. Clayton.
You brought to mind one more question from me, and this will absolutely be the last question. We talked about incentive payments, and EQIP currently has an incentive payment option. Is it inadequate? Or what changes could be made? One last question to the whole panel. Looking at the incentive payment options within EQIP, is it inadequate, and what changes could be made to help producers?
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, while my agency is not responsible for implementing those programs, in my conversations with our State Conservation Commission, they are finding that there aren't a lot of takers with EQIP currently in our State, and much of that has to do with the size of the match and the current situation in the farm economy.
Mr. SMITH. Apparently, this incentive component within EQIP, someone needs to take a hard look at it, because those of us that have applied for contracts and even have contracts aren't terribly aware of it or even utilize it. So I would suggest that there probably is something wrong, since it is being underutilized.
Mr. HAMPTON. Congressman, we would like the EQIP program to be amended to allow payments to producers during the year the contract is signed. Current authority disallows that, and it impedes investment in necessary environmental technology and delays the benefits.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this is my last.
I want to tell you that the last statement Mr. Hampton made, I have had minority farmers say to me why they don't participate, particularly socially disadvantaged farmers who are the minorities now, they can't afford to wait that long. They can't put $10,000 and get it 2 years later. They don't have that margin of operation. So I just wanted to acknowledge that that has been a concern raised by the farmers in my area.
Mr. LUCAS. With that, the subcommittee appreciates the insights and the variety of responses from the questions the panel has answered and provided input on. Thank you for your attendance today, and we look forward to working with you to help make some positive things continue to happen in production, agriculture and in conservation in this next farm bill. Thank you.
If the next panel will come forward. We have Mr. R. Max Peterson, executive vice-president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies here in Washington, DC. We have Mr. Craig Cox, the executive vice-president, Soil and Water Conservation Society from Iowa; and Mr. Jeff Nelson, director of operations for Great Plains Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Bismarck, ND, on behalf of the Sportsman Coalition; and Mr. Ralph Grossi, president of the American Farmland Trust, Washington DC, on behalf of the Coalition of Conservation and Environmental Organizations.
Mr. Peterson, whenever you are ready, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You have my testimony. If you will accept it in full, I will try to brief it for you and save you some time.
Mr. Chairman, I do represent the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies that have been involved in these conservation programs since the beginning. I would also acknowledge that some of us here with more gray hair than others were part of the 1985 farm bill, but we have followed these through the years, and let me acknowledge that I think these conservation provisions of the farm bill, beginning in 1985, have done a tremendous amount of good not only for farmers and helping stabilize income but in terms of conservation. As you go about the country, there is wildlife abounding in places where it was not really present in very large numbers before. We see streams running clear that one time were running muddy.
So much of my testimony deals with the fact that we think we have made a great many improvements over time in these conservation reserve programs, and I would be the first one to acknowledge that they are not perfect. The point that in some places we are still having problems with the right grass mixture is something that we dealt with I thought 15 years ago to empower State Technical Committees, working with local counties, to be sure they got it right, but we still find places apparently that we—the half life of knowledge I am absolutely convinced is about 6 or 7 years. You solve the problem once, and it comes back to bite you.
So one of the suggestions that we make in our testimony, I think if we had some kind of a threshold level of qualifications for some of these programs and then allow flexibility to design within our threshold level. I have never been really comfortable with computer programs making the final selection, but it does seem to me that there does need to be some weighing of conservation benefits between different kinds of land. I am not sure how you do that without some kind of an attempt to do it through an index or some system of weighing one piece of land against the other, but I have always been concerned about the idea that you get the precise answer by using a computer program. I would much rather have State or local people out there with some kind of a threshold level look and say, yeah, here is land that qualifies, but this one is better than this one over here, or if we could do this to this land, it would be a substantial improvement.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the concerns over the years is how do you relate these different programs, like CRP, WHIP, Wetland Reserve Program and so on. There again, I would give States much more flexibility in tying these programs together at the local level, because a farmer may have both some wetlands, he may have some land that qualifies for CRP, he may have some land that would qualify for EQIP. There ought to be a way to package that that would make sense to the farmer. Because now it happens at different times and different standards, and you aren't really sure what kind of a program you are going to get till the dust all settles. So I think there is some opportunities to improve that.
In my testimony, we have made recommendations for different levels of the different programs. We recommend that CRP be expanded from 36.4 to 45 million acres, that the wetland reserve program, we increase the authorization by 250,000 acres a year. As you know, that is completely used up now. We believe that WHIP, which has turned out to be a tremendously beneficial program, be authorized an expenditure of a hundred million acres, because one thing that WHIP does, it allows sort of a custom design of a program to fit a particular farmer's operation and fit the wildlife needed there as well as the other conservation programs.
There is a proposal that we have been working on for several years for a grassland program. There is a lot of grassland out there that is in existing cover that is highly beneficial. As Congressman Peterson says, who has been in this about the same time I have, it never makes any sense to me to plow up one piece of land in order to put another piece in. And I am sure it doesn't make any sense to the farmer either. So it would be very helpful if we could have a grassland program that would specifically recognize the benefit of grasslands.
Finally—and just suggestions of improvement—the continuous sign-up program, I have a brother in Missouri who is in the real estate business. He deals with this all the time. There is very small acres involved there. So you really can't use standard rental rates and so on. That has to be developed in more of a custom-made program.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, we believe that both the Farmland Protection Program and Forest Stewardship and Forest Legacy should be part of this program and not separate, because sometimes farmers want one of these and not the other, and it would make sense to be able to get one as a mandatory but they have to wait and see if there is an appropriation for something else.
That completes my brief on my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Cox.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG COX, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY, ANKENY, IA
Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for being allowed to speak to you today.
We have submitted written testimony. We have also released a new report this morning that we have provided to the committee that presents detailed recommendations for what we would recommend for reform of both conservation and farm policy in the next farm bill.
But in the few moments I have in front of you, I would like to try to rise up to the challenge you gave us, Mr. Chairman, to talk about conservation in the context of a comprehensive farm policy.
What I am going to say is based on a series of five workshops we held around the country where we invited grassroots leaders from agriculture, water resource and fish and wildlife communities to share their ideas with us about how to fix what we have in conservation policy, and we also asked them to imagine they could wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. We have taken their ideas and attempted to shape them into specific recommendations that would be of use to you as you struggle with the decisions you need to make.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My basic message would be that we think we are missing a critical opportunity in agricultural policy to both help keep people on the land and care for that land at the same time, and we think the reason that we are missing that opportunity is because conservation policy is unbalanced and farm policy is unbalanced. Conservation policy is unbalanced because we have to rely too much on one tool, which is taking land out of production for conservation pumps.
Farm policy is unbalanced because, again, we have to rely too much on one tool, which is trying to affect the price of a selective set of commodities or subsidize the income of those producers who produce a selected set of commodities. As a result of those two imbalances the reach of agricultural policy is seriously limited, and it simply cannot help keep people on the land and care for the land in the way that our workshop participants envisioned that agricultural policy ought to be designed to do.
Now, we think we can correct this imbalance but that in order to correct that imbalance and really make conservation a force for helping keep people on the land we are going to have to look at fundamental reform of both conservation policy and agricultural and farm policy.
On the conservation side, we need to double funding for existing conservation programs at about $2.5 billion more but spend most of that new money on technical services and on assistance to landowners that are trying to keep farming and not take land out of production. That doesn't mean we don't support the CRP and WRP. In fact, we make room in our $5 billion budget for a 30 percent increase, over $500 million increase, for those functions. But the major emphasis on new investment has to be technical services and financial assistance to help those farmers that want to keep farming but do so in a more environmentally sound way.
Now, we detail a number of other specific recommendations for program reform in our testimony in the report that I refer you to, but let me now jump quickly to farm policy reform.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we did what we just recommended in terms of conservation policy, we would make a huge step forward in ensuring that commercial viability of action and environmental quality are compatible goals, but that is not enough to achieve the vision that our workshop participants gave to us.
To do that, we think we really need to make room in farm policy this time for a program that is based on stewardship rather than based on the collection of commodities that a producer happens to produce. We see stewardship contracts as being worked into farm policy in a way similar, perhaps, to production flexibility contracts. But instead of that production flexibility contract being—the payment being calculated based on the historic mix of a selected set of commodities produced, the stewardship payment would be based on the level of conservation benefit a producer is willing to do and to produce environmental benefits for taxpayers.
About 8 percent of farmers currently receive over half of all the farm subsidy payments, while operating about 32 percent of the farm acres in this country. We think a stewardship contract, as part of farm policy itself, would be a way to balance farm policy and reach out to all of those agricultural producers who do not receive lots of subsidies from current programs but who do manage most of the landscape in this country.
Thank you, sir, and members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Nelson.
STATEMENT OF JEFF NELSON, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL OFFICE, DUCKS UNLIMITED INC., BISMARCK, ND, ON BEHALF OF THE SPORTSMAN COALITION
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, members, I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. We have submitted written testimony, and so I am just going to quickly summarize what we had to say.
I am a professional biologist by training, and I work for Ducks Unlimited, but this testimony comes from just more than Ducks Unlimited. I grew up on a dairy farm in Minnesota, and so I have a farming background myself, and I have also worked in both the United States and Canada, mostly in the prairies.
Ducks Unlimited, as you may know, has grown from a handful of people in 1937 when it was founded to an organization over a million supporters that have helped conserve nearly 10 million acres of habitat across the continent. We take great pride in our work with private landowners, in our ability to assist and advise farmers, ranchers and foresters on how they can meet their economic goals while providing habitat for wildlife.
Importantly though, today I am representing the views of a broad coalition of about 40 conservation organizations with their interests being represented by nearly 10 million members. These organizations represent a spectrum of interests that have come together to support continuing a strong conservation tradition in U.S. agriculture policy. The groups I represent today include the Nature Conservancy, the Congressional Sportsman Foundation, Pheasants Forever, NRA, The Wildlife Management Institute and others. Collectively, our members and supporters represent a sizable cross-section of our Nation's citizenry. You will find a list of the organizations on the title page of our written testimony.
The future of wildlife in this country is inseparably tied to actions undertaken on private lands. Agriculture is by far the dominant use on these lands, with about 50 percent of the United States, or 900 million acres, managed as cropland, pasture or rangeland. Thus, Federal agricultural programs and policies have an enormous influence on the condition of our Nation's air, soil, water, plant, wildlife and other natural resources. In recognition of this fact, Congress incorporated strong conservation titles in the 1985 farm bill and has continued this approach in each of the last two farm bills.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past two decades, conservation programs have played an integral role in the economic vitality and general well-being of our Nation. In addition, they have improved conservation of private lands by enhancing and protecting wildlife and their habitat. The increased role and importance of conservation in agriculture and its role in private land stewardship has given way to a dialog that, while contentious at times, has led to consensus and partnerships among Government and private interests, including commodity groups, individual producers, livestock organizations and the conservation community as a whole.
Voluntary, incentive-based conservation provisions included in national agriculture policy have provided the framework for win/win solutions on the farm and across the rural and urban landscape. Our organizations are united in their belief that this Congress should strongly support continued commitment of our Federal resources to farm bill conservation provisions.
I will present four areas of focus, followed by brief descriptions of the specific farm bill conservation programs and the rationale for including them as we go forward. The Coalition is united behind these four areas of focus, and they lie in no particular order.
We would like to see expansion of the Wetlands Reserve Program to accommodate enrollment of 250,000 acres per year through the duration of the next farm bill.
Second, we would like to see the restoration of the enrollment caps for the Conservation Reserve Program to its original 1985 level of 45 million acres.
Third, we would like to see expansion of the WHIP Program to authorize expenditures of $100 million annually.
And, fourth, we would like to see the development of a new Grasslands Reserve Program, which would authorize up to a million acres for enrollment and that would be targeted to some of the native grassland areas that we still have out there.
We urge you to continue and expand these agriculture programs with the addition of the Grasslands Reserve Program, because they have been proven to be successful in achieving recent conservation gains and provide critical options for family farmers. Farm policy that includes wetland and grassland protection features, like swamp buster and sod buster, in combination with other voluntary incentive programs like I discussed, comprise a package of conservation provisions that, taken together, promise future success based on a strong tradition of natural resource stewardship.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Farm policy must address both the immediate and long-term needs of our Nation's producers. Producers must be able to survive and hopefully prosper while they work to provide food, fiber and shelter so important to our qualify of life. The conservation of soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources requires a long-term strategic view, and this subcommittee has a special challenge to try to incorporate these sorts of things into farm policy.
I would like to thank you with that for the opportunity to provide comments as you continue to deliberate on conservation in the next farm bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Grossi.
STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST, WASHINGTON, DC, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. GROSSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am a dairy farmer and cattle rancher from northern California, and for the past 16 years, I have also served as president of the American Farmland Trust. Today I am here to testify on behalf of 16 national and regional conservation and farm organizations representing more than 10 million Americans.
Our fundamental message to this committee today is that conservation should be the focal point of the next farm bill. Rewarding farmers for environmental stewardship can promote rapid progress on a wide range of critical national environmental objectives. Private crop, pasture and range lands account for more than 50 percent of the lands in the contiguous United States; and private forests account for another 20 percent.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Farmers and private forest owners can provide not only food and fiber but also clean water, habitat for native wildlife and a barrier against sprawling development, as well as other public benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I want you to grasp the gravity of this moment that you have, this moment in time, to recraft farm policy in this country. The American consumer is not demanding more wheat, corn and soybeans. The American consumer is demanding clean air and water, wildlife habitat and open space around their communities. The next farm bill can provide the funds to help farmers achieve those needs of all Americans. The Agriculture Committee has a historic opportunity to craft the next farm bill in a manner that properly recognizes the importance of the private landowner.
Because in its budget resolution Congress has made an average of $21 billion per year available for a 5-year farm bill, this committee does have the resources necessary to craft a bill to address private stewardship challenges in a way that is appropriate to the scale of the need.
And the desire among landowners is great. More than half of all farmers seeking technical assistance to enhance stewardship are turned away. So, too, are three out of every four farmers seeking help from the EQIP program to improve water quality. There is a backlog of 560,000 acres of wetlands to be submitted for restoration for the Wetland Reserve Program, and approximately 4,000 farmers and ranchers in the path of sprawl are willing to sell their development rights. The oversubscription to the Farmland Protection Program this year was 6 to 1. There clearly is a need and a desire by landowners to do something. The response has to start in committee. They are turned away because conservation spending since the last farm bill as a percentage of direct aid to farmers has greatly declined, from about 30 percent in 1996 and 1997 to 6 percent in the last fiscal year.
A new farm bill should focus $11.8 billion per year on conservation programs and stewardship incentives, as well as programs for research, marketing, and rural economic development that support independent and resource-conserving farmers.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A reoriented farm bill can help meet a broad array of challenges and help farmers, ranchers and foresters attain the environmental quality that the public is demanding. There are numerous areas and specific recommendations that we can make to you, but in the interest of time I will skip through those and just mention that the highest priorities I think clearly are in the areas of water quality, in sprawling development and preserving prime and unique farmland, safer food and confidence in that food supply, native wildlife and endangered species, enhancing pasture and rangeland in this country, as well as our private forest lands, and in the area of climate change, where many of the practices that reduce polluted runoff or enhance wildlife habitat also help sequester carbon, turn methane into energy, reduce nitrous oxide and otherwise reduce gases that contribute to global warming.
Federal programs can help farmers develop markets as well to solve verifiable true reductions in greenhouse gases to industry.
Current farm programs are lacking in many ways, and you have heard this from other members on this panel. And I think it is important to note that nearly two-thirds of all producers currently don't receive any direct support. A broad conservation title can do much to help farmers and communities address their needs. But, again, it has to start at this committee. Of the $21 billion available, roughly half should be made available for these programs to provide stewardship payments, to buy easements on threatened lands, to create incentives for farmers to enhance and preserve grasslands and, importantly, to increase the technical assistance needed to deliver those programs to respond to those needs.
If you don't respond to this need to help individual landowners, the public will force more rules and regulations on those private landowners. We know they are demanding these services, and they will get them one way or the other. This leads to more conflict over the use of lands and how lands are used and, to resolve that, we have to find ways to make private landowners partners with the public in achieving them.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grossi appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. My first question would be—perhaps those organizations, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Nelson, who have advocated going back to the original CRP target number, 45 million acres. Have your organizations taken into consideration when preparing your positions on these concepts not only the potential impact on soil and water conservation and wildlife but also the economic and cultural impact on the areas in rural America where the majority of these acreages are or would be?
Mr. PETERSON. Yes, we have. We believe that the economic impact would be positive.
If you look at where CRP has been used now, it provides a supplemental source of income for people. It provides some assurance that there be money there to pay debts to banks and so on. So I think you will find in the communities where CRP is important, by and large, it has been positive in that community. It has always brought people into the community to hunt and fish and otherwise recreate, which is one of the fastest-growing types of recreation in the United States today is related to wildlife. That is, in fact, the fastest growing. So, yes, we have looked at that, and we think it would be positive.
Mr. NELSON. We would agree with that. In fact, we looked into the idea that CRP has somehow contributed to the decline of small-town America in the rural landscape, and in fact we looked in North Dakota and found that a number of acres of cropland has not gone down since CRP was initiated. It has actually gone up. And what CRP really replaced was foul grounds. So that land now, instead of eroding in sort of a foul kind of a system, has been taken under production and put under grass and created all the benefits CRP creates. Whereas, it has an impact, either the bush was harvested or the acres and cropland.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other thing I might mention is we work with our Canadian counterparts where they don't have CRP, and the same trends are occurring across the prairies of Canada as you see in the great heartland of the United States in terms of agriculture and the towns that rely on agriculture. So I agree with Congressman Peterson that I think there is a lot of information that we have indicated is a positive benefit and not nearly negative as some would have you believe.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Cox, your organization stewardship-based option for agriculture, you mentioned that it would involve the say of local producers and citizens with guidance from USDA's State Technical Committees in establishing what the minimum bar would be for producers to pass to be eligible for the payments. Would you expand for me just a moment how the concept envisions those agricultural producers playing a role in this process of determining what environmental issues would qualify to receive assistance?
Mr. COX. Well, I think we are attempting to bill on the model that has been used for the past 60 years, frankly, in working with agricultural producers and community at the local level to help direct how USDA conservation programs are spent.
The State Technical Committees, in our view, would be the go-between, frankly, between the local communities and the Federal Government. It would be their responsibility to help mesh the priorities that are established at the local level with the priorities that are established at the Federal level to assure Federal taxpayers that the dollars they are investing in these conservation programs actually meet significant State environmental or national environmental goals. So that is how we see the State Technical Committee playing.
At the local level, conservation districts, watershed councils, FSA committees, these local folks have been involved for decades, often involving producers themselves in helping to set priorities for what conservation spending ought to be.
Now, there are two recommendations I think you may be talking about at the same time. The second recommendation, we feel that issue of what taxpayers ought to be expected to pay for versus what farmers or ranchers ought to be expected to do as a responsibility of land ownership is going to arise as a significant issue in the implementation of this program, especially if billions of dollars are put through this pipeline as we recommend, the $3 billion program. This kind of issue has already been raised in programs like EQIP, where operators above the thousand animal units have been excluded from assistance for some portions of EQIP.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think the way around that or the most creative way around that would be to have agricultural producers and local citizens decide in their local community what ought to be expected as a minimum land stewardship from farmers and ranchers and pay for efforts in addition to that.
Mr. LUCAS. So you envision the local entities being on par with the State Technical Committees or being recipients of their decisions?
Mr. COX. Well, I actually think that is sort of a false dichotomy. I don't think we send to set these things up as local versus Federal or top down versus bottoms up. The fact is, we need both. That is the only way you can achieve accountability to taxpayers and flexibility to local citizens simultaneously.
There is this tension between local control and accountability is a necessary and desirable part of a system that relies on local, State and Federal partners. I don't think there is any way to—I don't think you can choose the grassroots versus the top down. You have to make that process transparent and as participatory as possible.
Mr. LUCAS. But as in the nature of any governmental process from which the majority of the money flows, generally flows the majority of the control, too.
But we will have time to visit with this in another round. I now turn to Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Well, I, too, want to focus on this. I was struck by your first—what was it we needed? A new vision? What was that? We had an opportunity for a new vision?
Mr. COX. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. CLAYTON. And that the dichotomy of where we are now is how we are approaching our farm program is we have taken land out of production, that that's how we take care of some conservation and how we take care of fluctuation in the market, we support local commodities. That is where you have summed up what we are now doing. Right?
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COX. That is correct.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Now as we move to get the balance, we would use those tools. We would talk about the current tools you see us using. If those tools—the status quo, and we want to move to a more envisioned and enlightened farm bill.
Mr. COX. Right.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Help me understand how we move from the price quota for certain commodities and how we achieve a sustainable, safe environmental land and not use our current tools.
Mr. COX. I will try, ma'am.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I just want to understand where you are.
Mr. COX. I understand, and I will try to address your question.
On the conservation side, let me address that first, and then I will talk about the farm policy side. On the conservation side, the CRP and the WRP are very excellent, effective tools. In fact, they demonstrate what enough money can do.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So those two you see as being adequate?
Mr. COX. So those should be retained, and in fact we would propose increasing their reach. But we would see the major expansion on the conservation side being in programs like EQIP that are helped to design people that are producing food and fiber do so in a more environmentally sound way and with a primary emphasis on technical services. By that I mean research, education, technical assistance. We actually see that as the fundamental conservation program.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So you would substitute technical assistance from what we are now doing in the EQIP program?
Mr. COX. Well, I think we need to change the way we think about technical assistance. Too often we see it as a cost of delivering financial assistance. That is not how we see it. We see technical assistance as the basis of conservation, with financial assistance being something that makes it easier for farmers to do conservation.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we would change the emphasis to put technical assistance at the core and then use these financial assistance tools to help farmers do what they now know how to do in terms of changing their operations on the farm policy.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So you would put in more incentives to encourage good environmental behavior that farmers are now doing? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. COX. I would focus EQIP on helping farmers adopt production systems that produce crops or livestock that integrate conservation practices directly into those production systems so that the process used to produce food and fiber produces environmental goods and services at the same time. That is what those sorts of programs ought to be directed to doing, and technical help is absolutely critical to making that happen, in fact, more important in many cases than financial help.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So would you, therefore, give more resources to capacity building for technical assistance within natural resources?
Mr. COX. If you start from the 2000 year funding, our $5 billion proposal for conservation programs—as opposed to $3 billion for farm programs would be—we would double funding for technical services to about $1.75 billion a year. We triple fund for what we call assistance to working land, programs like EQIP, to about a billion a year. And we would increase the land retirement programs by about 30 percent to $2.25 billion. That is the sort of balance we think would actually create a fully functioning conservation program enterprise effort within the Department of Agriculture.
On the farm policy side, what we have seen in terms of our looking at the data is that there have been fundamental changes in the structure of agriculture. And because our basic commodity subsidy programs follow production, as production of those subsidized commodities has focused on fewer farms and fewer acres, so have the subsidies. And what has happened is because of that there is a large portion of agriculture, most producers frankly operating most acres, that do not benefit that greatly from our current commodity subsidy programs.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That came through loud and clear in our workshops. And what we see is our stewardship contracts being a viable way for the Federal taxpayer to engage with those agricultural producers, provide them help to keep them on the land by paying for what they are already doing, and also paying for them to do more than they are doing now. So that is how we see the stewardship component being fit into farm policy.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much. And I appreciate your good testimony and I was happy to be part of one of your forums, Mr. Cox.
And part of what I have been hearing through a number of panelists, both this panel and the last panel, is the need for more flexibility at the State level. And I found that whenever we have glitches in the States' flexibilities to deal with these they can be more creative and innovative than we can be sitting here in Washington.
What ideas do you guys have, and I will open it up to comments, on how we can encourage innovation at the State level that will maybe help guide the way for how we should be going nationally?
Mr. PETERSON. I will give you a couple of ideas. I think that what Mr. Cox is talking about, one thing we have always advocated, I think there are people who will do things just from technical assistance. So wherever you can provide technical assistance a large number of landowners will do that. That should be one option that is open probably more broadly, and it does not have to be tied to signing up for CRP or WRP or something, technical assistance to help people assess their operation. And some if they do that will do good things for conservation.
But I would say to the Congresswoman over here that not always are people able to afford to do it if they have technical assistance, because you have a lot of small landowners that may need some level of financial assistance. And that is where it would be extremely important to have some flexibility at the local level to give technical assistance to those who only need that and be able to go a step further to landowners who need more than that. That is one kind of flexibility.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another kind of flexibility, as I mentioned earlier, is to try to package these programs so that you do not at one point put in a CRP and 3 months later do WRP and some time later do something else so that the farmer will know the outcome at one point in time. Those are just a couple of ideas. And I think if you gave the State and local people more flexibility, they would come up with more ideas of how you might do this.
Mr. GROSSI. Congressman, I could add a few points. I think one of the problems with our current programs is that the priorities are set here instead of in the States and localities. If we had a system in the best of all worlds where the State knew how much money they were going to have in the form of Federal matching funds for a particular year, and had fairly broad guidelines as to how to apply those funds based on the priorities in that State; that is, water quality versus climate or some other issue, habitat, and allow them to make those decisions and draw those guidelines, if you will, to allocate the funds and to decide how much matching funds they could apply to the programs, we would have a much more effective system.
We would generate a lot more interest and probably a lot more matching funds at the State level and we would build a constituency for these Federal programs that currently does not exist among American consumers and taxpayers.
I would point to one program with which I am very familiar, of course, as an example: The Farmland Protection Program allows States, local communities, and nonprofit organizations to match Federal dollars, and it matches them rather dramatically. Unfortunately, it has been a small program but we are getting a 6-, 7- and 8-to–1 match from non-Federal sources. That is the kind of efficiency and leverage I think we could get in other programs if they were designed properly.
Mr. COX. Congressman, we explored the idea of block grants, which was brought up in the previous panel, in our workshops. We ran into a buzz saw of opposition to the notion of block granting programs for a number of reasons, including accountability issues and concern that those programs would be redirected away from the purposes for which they are authorized by Congress.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think there is a couple of opportunities to pursue that are perhaps less dramatic than block grants. One would build on the experience with the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program that I think you are familiar with in Minnesota. This notion of operating Federal programs through State agreements that provide States much more flexibility in how those programs operate I think is a good example. And I think we should explore how to expand that notion to all of our USDA conservation programs, building on the success of CREP, and of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
We also think there is an opportunity to provide States more money as well as more flexibility to implement their State agreements or State plans, by thinking about creating a fund by which a portion of all of the dollars made available every year for individual conservation assistance funds is pooled and made available to States who have signed these agreements. And somewhat like a grant program, I mean, we think this kind of idea would get around a lot of the objections that we heard to block grants and yet provide a significant amount of flexibility and authority at State and local levels to deal with Federal program guidelines.
Mr. KENNEDY. Good.
Mr. NELSON. I will just make a quick comment. ''One size fits all'' never works as good as many sizes tailored to each individual area would work. The example of the CRP cover EBI is a great example of what happens when you try to apply one formula to everywhere in the country. I would strongly advocate being mindful of flexibility at the State level, but maintaining important sideboards to maintain quality control in the program and some consistency across the country.
Mr. KENNEDY. We appreciate your comments and look forward to working with you on adding more flexibility in whatever we do here in conservation. So thank you.
Mr. THUNE [presiding]. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question of questions, one I think I am particularly interested in. I am from California and our property values in California are, sometimes to the point where it is detrimental, are pretty high. And it seems to me that we need to figure out some way to craft the conservation programs so they will be able to respond to the sprawl matters and such in California that will allow us to participate in the programs. We have lost, I think, 97 percent of our historic wetlands, for instance. So I would think it would be an idea that is critical that we are able to respond. But given the high property values, it is tough for us to participate in these programs.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was wondering if any of you had any ideas as to how we could address that issue?
Mr. GROSSI. Well, as the Californian sitting at the table I will take the first shot at it, Congressman. While I am at it, I want to welcome a fellow Californian sitting behind me, former Deputy Secretary Rominger, who has joined us today, who might know a lot more about this than any of us.
As you know, the current method of distributing dollars across the American landscape, Federal dollars for farm programs, is not based on any real evaluation of the resource base. It is historic based on primarily commodity production, and that in itself ought to raise a big red flag for all of us. California is by far the number one agricultural State. It has tremendous natural resources that are at great risk, and there is very little money going into that State to address the problems.
So redefining the parameters, the different distribution system, maybe allocating new dollars; you heard me suggest that we ought to raise the total to somewhere around $11 billion. Maybe it is not the current level dollars that you reorient, but put the new dollars into those places where the most important resources is at the greatest risk and allocate it by some criteria that defines that other than what kind of commodity you produce.
I think it is very clear that in California a little money will go a long way, even though the property values are high, because the public has put protection of the land as a very high priority. And so the State and private interests and foundations are contributing a great deal of money. And, frankly, the Federal Government is not living up to its share of the costs of protecting the environment out there. I am suggesting a different kind of criteria that would make sure the money goes into the place where the best, most important asset is at the greatest risk.
Mr. PETERSON. Congressman Thompson, having lived in California for 15 years, but I sold my property before all the values went up. I have good timing. But realistically, I think as Ralph Grossi has indicated, there are some important partnership programs that have worked pretty well in California. The State of California Fish and Game Agency, for example, has put quite a bit of money into protection of wetlands. Ducks Unlimited put quite a bit of money into it. So I think if we look at partnership programs in places like that where values are high, the benefits are also high. So we ought to figure out ways to leverage those partnership programs as one idea.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Plus, maybe that Environmental Benefits Index that we all cuss and discuss, maybe we could recognize the size of the benefits from some of these programs other than just the benefit index.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I look forward to working with any of you and the subcommittee to make sure that we can address this issue.
Another matter that concerns me—and it came to my attention because of a California project, but I am assuming it has happened in other places—we have a highway in my State that they want to realign, and they want to realign it, the Department of Transportation, right through the middle of permanent easements for wetland protection. And they are going to take it through both State level easements as well as CRP and WRP easements.
I think this greatly undermines the integrity of the program. If someone puts their property into permanent easement and taxpayers pay for that, it seems deleterious to me to then run a highway through that. And I would like to figure out some way that we can provide a higher protection for these properties that we are trying to protect. And if you have any suggestions on that, I would like to hear from you. You can let me know separately because my time is running out.
I would like to get a sense from the four panelists as to your ideas as to permanent easements vis-a-vis temporary easements. It seems to me the permanent easements provides a good planning tool for both resource allotment as well as for farmers who participate in these programs.
Mr. PETERSON. Let me talk about the highway thing there for a minute. There is a provision in the Federal law that says if you are building a highway, you can't use either recreation land and so on unless there is no feasible alternative. That is maybe a little too strong for the case that you are using, but there is a precedent in the law that says you can't just disregard the fact that there is an easement.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also point out that groups that oppose permanent easements also say that sometimes a little thin easement might hold up something that is badly needed. So somebody ought to be able to weigh those equities. And we believe that the fact that there is a permanent easement ought to be an important thing when you locate that highway, to not just ignore that is there. And there is precedent in the Federal Highway Act now for outdoor recreation and park land, but does not address permanent easements.
Mr. NELSON. I will just say one quick thing about permanent easements. I think permanent easements are a critical part of the mix. I think there are critical parts of the landscape that ought to be put under easement to protect the resource values that are there. On the other hand, there is always the need for shorter term conservation programs that maybe transition landowners to different kinds of working agricultural properties.
Mr. GROSSI. Congressman, let me just add two quick comments to that. The reference to the highway, there is a Farmland Protection Policy Act passed in 1981, rules are out and the Governor of the State has considerable power if the highway is going to go through productive prime farmland. So that is one avenue in that case.
On the issue of permanent versus term easements, I think the reality is that you will find that you will pay almost as much for a 30-year easement or 25-year easement as you would for a permanent easement. In that case what are we really getting for the taxpayer in return? Are we getting permanent protection for the money put out or only buying time?
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Putnam.
Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak with you about some of the ideas that the Farmland Trust and Mr. Cox had raised. Mr. Cox, if I read your booklet correctly, your organization recommends essentially a fundamental shift from a production or income support-driven farm policy to a stewardship or conservation-based farm policy, where you would—if I understand it correctly—form the basis of all payments on the social benefits derived from that farmland, the water recharge, wildlife habitat, et cetera. Is that essentially correct?
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COX. Actually, that fundamental reform was suggested by a number of our workshop participants, but we came out nowhere near down as fundamental reform of that.
What we are actually recommending is the creation of an option based on stewardship. We see some elements of especially risk management components of current farm policy continuing, because conservation simply cannot address some of those risks. Crop insurance, for example, if reformed and made to function as a true insurance program, should continue because conservation is not going to deal with the risks of hail or bad weather or disasters. Similarly, perhaps something that looks like a safety net, a minimum countercyclical sort of program that deals with legitimate risks faced by producers in world markets with swings in prices may have a function long term within agricultural policy to deal with those real risks that agricultural producers face.
So we are not arguing that conservation can replace all elements, all of the traditional tools of farm policy. But we do think there is a crying need to balance our over-reliance on those traditional tools now with new tools that provides new options for farmers and new options for policymakers.
Mr. PUTNAM. The State of Florida has just passed a Rural Lands Protection Act which outlines just those stewardship payments, and I have legislation being prepared to be filed that would do that as well, and that is why I am very interested in the idea of stewardship payments.
Does the Farmland Trust have——
Mr. GROSSI. If I could just add a comment to Craig's comments. I think we need to back up and think about what the underlying principles are here. What is the policy or the principle that guides the policies that you are developing? And we think that ultimately we should get to a point where the payments to the landowners are consistent with the goods that landowner produces for society. Those goods in some cases might be environmental, social goods, if you will. In other cases they might be the protection of highly productive farmland or the production of certain commodities, food and fiber.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But right now they are all skewed. All the payments are skewed toward those producers who produce food and fiber. And there are these other values that flow from private lands that are produced. They are products of farms. Wildlife habitat, clean water, open space are farm products and we ought to begin to shift to align what the American taxpayer is paying with what the American taxpayer is getting in return. And that would lead us to a system that was not only fairer, but had much broader public support across the country, I think.
Mr. PUTNAM. What type of a time limit would you put on such a commitment? Would it be a 5-year stewardship agreement with the landowner? 30-year? An annual? Was any thought given to that by any of your organizations or discussion?
Mr. GROSSI. I don't think there has been a lot of detailed discussion, but there are plenty of models to draw from. One of them is in my home State, the Williamson Act program in California, where a rancher can sign up a 20-year agreement with their county to get the maximum use value tax benefits. And you are in the program for 20 years all the time until you opt out, and then you have 19 years left of benefit until you no longer get the benefit.
So that is the kind of model one could look at. There are other models and we would be happy to work with your staff on exploring some of those models.
Mr. PUTNAM. I look forward to that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS [presiding]. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Cox. In your testimony, in your explanation I guess, you were explaining the Conservation Security Act, something along that concept where you talked about the stewardship contracts.
Mr. COX. Yes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Who decides what the appropriate stewardship is and how these payments are going to be made? That is what concerns me. In Minnesota we have got the technical committee that was set up that is primarily dominated by Twin City people, which is something we run into all the time. And we have problems because they do not understand what is going on up in northwestern Minnesota. That is part of the problem.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So some of the concern I have about this is who it is that is going to decide what is the appropriate thing to do and are they going to come up with some cockamamie idea of about what it ought to be that is going to drive us crazy again, to be blunt about it.
Mr. COX. Congressman, we would certainly not recommend that we use a cockamamie scheme that would drive you crazy. We have been asked this question a lot in the course of our workshops and our deliberations since then. I must say I find it a bit puzzling in the sense that this issue has had to be dealt with in every financial assistance program for land management since the 1930's. And it was dealt with under the Agriculture and Conservation Program. It has been dealt with under EQIP. Can every financial assistance program——
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Let me stop you there. That is one of the problems that I have with it. We have created all of these things. Now if we set up a new program, we are going to go back and create a whole other process and have everybody come in and have to redo this all again.
Mr. COX. I think there are two things there, if I could finish my first thought. There is a lot of experience with very credible ways of applying local priorities and professional judgment to come up with a rational way to set payments for conservation performance. I think what would be different is the scale. It is not a difference in kind, it is a difference in scale. And that difference in scale troubles us, because if we really went down this stewardship option route we would be looking at providing technical assistance on an ongoing basis in the countryside at a scale we have not done since the 1930's. So that is an issue.
On the other issue, sir, we say in our report that unless this stewardship option is very big, $3 billion at a minimum, if we are not willing to make that kind of commitment within farm policy to stewardship, then we shouldn't do it. It would be much better to invest smaller sums of money if that is all this committee can address to this priority, to invest that in existing conservation programs. In fact we would recommend consolidating conservation programs to address that issue.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you. If I could, I would just like to make a little bit of a comment here about CRP. It gets to kind of what I am talking about here and it is some of what has been discussed in the committee all day. I represent this area of the Red River Valley where the river flows north and it floods all the time. And we have got the DNR and the technical committee, again these people in the Twin City, and the solution that they give us is that we should have more wetlands. And I am all for wetlands, but they do not understand what is going on up there. We had bigger floods in the 1890's and 1880's than we have now and we had all the wetlands still in place. There wasn't one wetland drained at that point. These last three floods the wetlands have been completely full. They do no good. The water comes across land and we are paying millions of dollars to replace land.
Now, so the CRP does not qualify in the Red River Valley because it is not marginal land, it does not fit the EBI index, and we cannot get any CRP. I grew up in this area. I used to hunt there. There is not one bit of wildlife habitat left in that area. So we have been trying to get CRP put back in there, because that would actually stop the water and stop a lot of this overland flooding and it would work. We can't get it done.
The people in the Twin Cities, they are against it because they want us to put in wetlands. And this is the kind of frustration that we run into. And I think it happens in other parts of the country as well where we can see if we could just make a sensible use of these programs, that we could take that area alongside the river that floods and put into CRP, if we could put in strips to stop the water from coming across, we could stop a lot of this problem. But we can't do it.
And not only will they not look at it, they are opposed to it on ideological grounds because they have some idea of about what is politically correct or whatever.
So, I don't know what my point is other than to say that we have got some problems in trying to figure out how to make all of this stuff work and I hope during this process we can sit down and work on sensible solutions to make these programs which have been good programs work better and accomplish things for the people.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panelists, for being here today.
I certainly agree with a lot of your arguments. We currently have an increase in TMDLs and the requirements of the Clean Air Clean Water Act and Endangered Species, and of course this is adding cost to the landowners. And my contention is that we are not adequately compensating them for what we are expecting them to do.
So I am interested in some of your ideas. Seems like Mr. Cox has kind of been the whipping boy today. I will start in with you on the stewardship contracts. You were talking $3 billion, or exactly what percentage of the total agriculture budget are you talking about for these contracts?
Mr. COX. The way we finished our deliberations was to settle on a $3 billion level as the minimum level that would really make such a stewardship option a truly viable option for agricultural producers. And it was very important to us that this option be a real option for producers that provides assurances comparable to other aspects of farm policy. And we thought $3 billion was about the minimum that could be invested in such a program and accomplish that objective. That would be, depending on which figure you want to use—if $28 billion in fiscal year 2000 was spending on farm subsidies, that would be a relatively small percentage of that total.
Mr. OSBORNE. I believe, Mr. Grossi, you were talking about one-half of $22 billion, and actually probably have something like $17 billion on the average over the next 10 years in the budget right now, so it is not going to be that much. But I guess, particularly to you and maybe to Mr. Cox, I would ask this question: There is considerable difference in land types. You may get some land in Iowa that is very uniform, maybe no rivers, no bodies of water, which would not require any buffer strips. And then you may go to some other areas such as South Dakota where you will have a variety of landscapes, and Nebraska. So you will have some landowners qualifying for a relatively large percentage of these types of payments as opposed to others. And have you thought at all about any inequities or do you feel that my assumption is incorrect that there will be considerable differences?
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GROSSI. Of course, Congressman, there would be differences in how the money would flow. In the situation where you quadruple the amount of money for conservation as we are suggesting—and incidentally in my testimony when I referred to $22 billion, I was referring to the 5-year period of the farm bill. So it is supposed to phase down as was the case in the last farm bill.
I want to come back to the principle that I talked about earlier, and that is are we asking the tough questions? What is the taxpayer getting in return for their dollars and how do we justify these kinds of payments out into the future when we can't rely on emergency status to shovel money out the door at USDA?
And if we ask these tough questions and if we apply the programs so that farmers can make a decision about what they want to produce, how much land they want to set aside, how much land needs to go into buffer strips and that payment to them is competitive to producing a commodity so that the taxpayer is paying for something they are really getting in return, that virtually all farm areas have something to offer the public in the way of social benefits. In the way of soil conservation, wildlife habitat, clean water, carbon sequestration—one of the promising areas—virtually every farm area has some of those benefits, and what we need to do is create the options for farmers and local communities and State agencies to select from and then get the money flowing to those farmers who can best produce those benefits.
Mr. OSBORNE. You mentioned the words ''carbon sequestration.'' one of the questions I have been asked, if somebody is a rancher, they have had the same land for 100 years and they have taken good care of their land. And then you have someone who is farming marginal land and they take that land and put it back into grass. There is a temptation to say that we are going to reward that guy who takes the marginal land out of production and puts it back into grass and we are not going to do anything for the guy who has done something for 100 years. Have you thought about how you are going to allocate, or what carbon sequestration really means and who is going to dispense the funds?
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COX. Congressman, there is both a moral and a technical issue embedded in that question. I will take up the moral issue first, that since existing conservation programs often reward those folks that have either done the wrong thing or delayed in doing the right thing was one of the fundamental reasons why our workshop participants wanted to see a stewardship option built into farm policy itself.
We heard a number of examples from farmers who told us that they had kept their fragile land in grass and pasture and rangeland for generations and are therefore ineligible for assistance under the Conservation Reserve Program, whereas their neighbor who broke out their land was now getting $40 an acre a year to put that land back into grass. Those sorts of inequities were very strongly felt, particularly among the producers in our workshops.
This has been an issue with conservation programs for decades. I think we desperately need to find a way to deal with that. There are ways to deal with it in both existing conservation programs and in the Stewardship Program. We tended to think of things as maintenance fees versus installation fees where there is a cost to maintenance of practices and of good conservation systems. In many cases we know what those costs are today. And I think if we thought about stewardship both in existing programs and in this new stewardship option as maintenance versus installation, we could come up with a payment scheme that would not just reward those people who are doing the right thing now, but also pay less money perhaps, and almost certainly less money for maintenance, but still provide a reward to those folks who have been doing the right thing sometimes for generations.
So I think there are ways to address that. The carbon sequestration front, that is a technical issue as well as a moral issue in terms of accounting for the effective practices over decades, which is a daunting technical task. Most people that have confronted us with that technical problem have tried to look at what is going to happen from this date forward. That is an easier technical question than to ask us to quantify what happened in the past 30 years. That may be a way to look at the sequestration issue.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel. Let me just begin by saying that I am very supportive of many of the programs that are already in existence. In fact, I am a cosponsor of Congressman Peterson's bill to expand the CRP program. That is a program that has been enormously beneficial to my State of South Dakota. I think he wants to expand it so they can get acreage in Minnesota so they will have a pheasant population over there, so he doesn't have to come to South Dakota to hunt pheasants. I am not sure we want to accommodate that request.
As you know, I am sponsoring the Conservation Security Act, which you talked about the stewardship contracts, very similar to what we are talking about doing, and I think it is a very sound concept for a lot of reasons obviously. And the Chairman obviously accuses me of promoting my bill in these hearings. But I do have a question that I would like to get your answer to. One of the things that concerns me about some of the existing programs that we have is obviously the small businesses in South Dakota are very dependent on—the seed dealers, the fertilizer, all the folks on Main Street who serve the production agricultural population in our State suffer when we take a lot of land out of production.
I think we also know that we are going to spend a substantial amount of money in this new farm bill supporting agriculture. It seems to me it makes a lot of sense, and there are public benefits that are derived when we compensate landowners for practices that they are employing that are leading to conservation and wildlife habitat and all those things. Do you think that it is necessary to idle land in order to get a conservation benefit? If we allow producers to continue to farm, which is something they say, too, we sacrifice income sometimes if we pull land out of production, there are a lot of benefits in my mind that if we continue to allow them to farm the ground and implement conservation practices that are in the form of these contracts that they would agree to and then be compensated for those practices.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then a follow-up question to that, perhaps Mr. Nelson, about the wildlife benefits of one program relative to the other, because I know that is a concern that you have. It is a concern that I have. I would like to think that we could figure out a way to accomplish all of these objectives and provide broad public benefits at the same time that we are supporting our producers.
Mr. NELSON. Let me just quickly address the issue of working lands. One of the reasons we are strongly supportive of the Grassland Reserve Program is because there are ranchers that have incredibly important native grasslands and they use and will continue to work and it offers them an option to get involved and get paid for the conservation that they have been providing all of these years. It has been a very popular program as delivered through the Fish and Wildlife Service in South Dakota, as you probably know.
We are finding at least as much interest in North Dakota, where the laws are different, but we are working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to help make that option available to producers. We think it would be very popular if it was delivered through USDA in some kind of a parallel program and that would entail working lands, the implication being, yes, working lands do provide many values for wildlife. There is nothing wrong with grazing grasslands. I think grasslands, if they are going to stay grasslands, need to be grazed.
We obviously try to work with producers and make sure that they are not overgrazed, but our focus is to get the marginal land that is out there that has been broken out back into grassland cover and then get the wetlands restored, because they are a value as well when they go to a grazing system.
I also wanted to quickly touch on the idea that CRP is not really working land that has been idled. I think nowhere has the benefit of CRP been more evident than in South Dakota to the landowners. And most landowners who have CRP want to keep it idle because they get such tremendous wildlife production out of it, particularly pheasants. And we are seeing many operations really revolving around that idle cover that is part of the nesting cover and wildlife habitat that was missing in the system.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In fact, we have some small programs we have started in South Dakota where we seek to restore property that is on the market that is marginal land that has been broken out and we are having a hard time paying simply appraised value on an agricultural basis because so many farmers want to get back into—give that land because of the demand for pheasant hunting. I think there are ways of using working lands that produce both wildlife and agriculture products.
Mr. THUNE. Anybody else care to comment if it is necessary to idle land to get the conservation benefit?
Mr. PETERSON. I would agree with Mr. Nelson's comments. We worked very much with landowners where it is possible both to use the land for grazing and other purposes and still produce wildlife. But in an area where the native wildlife needed cover of the type that is provided on certain lands, and many of those were marginal lands originally that probably never should have been broken to begin with. If you went back and tried to break them out and work with the farmer, it simply wouldn't work in many of those areas.
There are other areas where, as Mr. Nelson indicated, where you can allow some grazing and that is why we are interested in this grassland provision, where some grazing is very compatible depending on the time of year and so on, with the production of the land for water quality and wildlife. So you can get all the benefits plus some use, and we would be very interested in working with you on that.
Mr. GROSSI. If I could add a comment, I am bothered by the implication that retiring land has a negative impact on the rural economy, if you will, the constant theme we hear criticism of CRP, because the flip side to that logic is that we support crop subsidies to enhance rural economies, crop subsidies that have clearly had a negative impact on the resource base in terms of soil erosion over the years.
I would suggest that might be analogous to tearing down a building and rebuilding it in order to rebuild economic activity. We have to rethink the logic behind it. If the objective is to support family farms, a sustainable family farm system in our rural economies, then funneling money through commodity programs probably is not the best way to do that. But if there is a social benefit to preserving that family farm structure out there, then let's find another way to do it. If it is not through stewardship payments, then some other system. But funneling the money through commodity programs that leads to negative impacts on the resource base and having to retire to rebuild it is twisted logic, but that is the state we find ourselves in.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. And to respond to that, Mr. Chairman, I think the point that I was making in that is if there is a way to accomplish both, because your point earlier about what the taxpayers are getting for how we support agriculture, if we can get environmental benefit, conservation, wildlife habitat, all of those things, and at the same time the farmer continues to buy seed and fertilizer on those Main Streets, I think it is time for a new model, and that is why I hope this new bill provides the basis for doing that.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Thune. I think it is worth noting several times in the discussion today the discussion has come up: What does the American taxpayer get for his or her dollars in our present agriculture policy? We clearly need to remember that the first and foremost requirement of this coming farm bill and all previous farm bills is to provide the highest quality food and fiber to the American consumer, to make sure that we are all given the opportunity to eat and to be dressed.
And the secondary role, for two centuries this country has acted as the world's granary. We have been the productive workhorse that has made sure that resources in times of drought and famine and war were available for a price for the entire planet. That has been the ultimate original goal, I think, of farm policy and responsibility of production agriculture.
That said, times change and increases in productivity have changed rural America. When that first farm bill was passed in 1933, both of my grandfathers farmed behind two mules. My implement dealers now tell me if the tractor does not have 450 horsepower they cannot sell it. So things do change, but we have to reflect that.
Now this panel and previous panels and many of my constituents back home have advocated substantial increases in conservation spending, most of it with a tremendous amount of merit. But as a subcommittee, and as a full committee, we have to work within the resources that are made available to us to achieve the greatest possible goal.
Let me ask one last round of questions. If we are successful in coming up with substantial resources to invest, clearly NRCS has said before this subcommittee that they with their present personnel base are doing, I believe 110 percent was the comment made in the hearing, and I believe that. Much discussion has been made of third party sources for technical advice and implementation of these programs if the resources were available. Tell me from the perspective of your organization, would you be involved in that role if they were available? Would you be out there contracting with the Federal Government to provide this kind of assistance? Anyone or everyone.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NELSON. We already are in a big time way, particularly with WRP. That is the only way that I know it is getting delivered in the States of Arkansas, Louisiana and probably others. We could find out for you. We in the northern part of the Great Plains, where I work, we have staff in several NRCS offices helping to deliver CRP, wetlands restoration in CRP, helping deliver WRP in Minnesota. So it is going on because of that backlog of work and they found it cost-effective to involve partners like Ducks Unlimited and other partners, State associations and so on. So it is happening already.
It seems to work fairly well. It is a good partnership. And it has been one that has been evolving over the last several years, getting comfortable with each other and what we each can bring to the party, but it is working well.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Cox? Mr. Peterson? Mr. Grossi?
Mr. COX. In that order, sir?
Mr. LUCAS. Whatever order you choose to go in.
Mr. COX. A small but I think growing number of our 9,000 members of our professional society are engaged in that kind of activity at the moment, mostly with landowners themselves, as private crop consultants or conservation consultants. But increasingly I am hearing from members that are involved in companies that are getting Federal grants of one shape, form or another to undertake conservation services for Federal programs. So it is happening, but it is certainly not the dominant employment scheme for our members.
Mr. PETERSON. Let me emphasize again that we surveyed 14 States and found out in those 14 States that they are providing over $5.4 million in cost sharing and 300,000 hours, the equivalent of 145 full-time employees, to help deliver farm programs. That is about 10 people per State, so the States are involved now.
But let me add real quickly that we have said for years, NRCS does not have enough technical people to fulfill the role that they need to fulfill, even if we assist and others assist. So I think that is a major problem to get enough people in NRCS to provide it because if they are not out there with the service available, particularly small operators will not take advantage of these programs unless there are people out there that are an outreach type of thing. So the needs are there, in addition to what we are already doing and we will continue to do.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GROSSI. Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman. I think first and foremost we need to repeat and echo what others have said about the need for technical assistance in NRCS. They are the trusted delivery service of technical assistance to the farm and ranch service. We need to enhance that capacity. Yes, my organization, the American Farmland Trust, is working with NRCS to help implement the Farmland Protection Program, both through training and education activities and actually helping with the land transactions in certain parts of the country. But we also have an extended family of land trusts and local agencies that are doing a great deal of work and would do a lot more if the funds were available to acquire easements or to cover some of the costs of doing so.
Finally, I want to emphasize the potential to leverage existing resources out there. State agencies, local governments, conservation districts, many of these agencies have unlimited potential to work with the Federal Government if the programs are designed properly.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee?
Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes, I do have.
Mr. LUCAS. Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. This subcommittee has as part of its title ''Rural Development.'' and just listening to the proposals and the opportunities that we have coming from several of you, Mr. Cox, Mr. Grossi, the American Trust, it sounds as if there is an opportunity to look at conservation in a broader sense. Not necessarily separating it, but to see its value beyond our traditional way of production of commodities or food fibers.
I have been saying that as agriculture goes in most rural communities, so does the rural community, meaning they are intertwined and interrelated in terms of their survivability. The department store or the hardware store or the bank indeed suffers as the farm suffers, but we also lose an opportunity in our farm communities in terms of an economic growth component if it is shrinking in terms of that.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you look at the economics, the demographics of the last census, you see people moving away from the land. There is not enough opportunity within rural communities to keep them there. So there is compelling reason for us to shore up the economic survivability and the productivity of our farmers; also with the livability and the economic opportunities in our community.
This committee has the opportunity for rural development, and heretofore it has been two or three paragraphs in the farm bill. I would just ask any and all just to comment, do we have an opportunity to look at making a statement about rural development in its more holistic sense than we have in the past? And anyone can answer.
Mr. GROSSI. I will jump in first and then pass this down the line, but I think the kinds of programs that are being suggested here are in effect a more sustainable potential rural development than are the current farm program payment system. Farmers would truly be paid for something of value they are producing.
So the comment made about broadening the programs here is relevant. We are not suggesting you do away with entirely the current commodity programs. We are talking about adding another set of products that we can reward farmers for producing and that is social products, environmental products that they produce. And currently they have to give away instead of collect something for it. So the opportunity is great.
Just in terms of opportunity, I think the chairman said it very well a few minutes ago, that times do change, and the reality is that the farmers who produce the food that America eats do not generally get any support from the Federal Government. It is only a few commodities that get that.
I was before this committee 16 years ago and Chairman Jones chaired this committee, and that committee at that time took the bull by the horns and made a dramatic shift in conservation programs in 1985. I think you have the same opportunity today, Chairman Lucas.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COX. I would like to respond and take it from a little different angle than Ralph did. One of the implications of the productivity revolution that Chairman Lucas just mentioned—and that productivity revolution is really at the heart of all of the angst, I think, regarding farm policy that this committee and everyone that is desperately concerned about agriculture faces. But one of the other consequences of that is that in many areas agriculture no longer plays the role in rural economies that it once did, and in fact a significant number of farmers and farm families and farm operations rely on off-farm sources of income in order to make their households viable.
So I think rural development is another potentially wonderful way to balance farm policy. I mean we started out talking about the imbalance in farm policy and talked about conservation as another leg to the stool, so to speak. But rural development, off-farm developing rural communities so that there are greater economic opportunities off the farm, is probably a critical way to also support a lot of those farm households that are increasingly dependent on a job in town to maintain their farm operation.
So I think it goes both ways, Congresswoman. I think conservation can be a force for rural development, but I think rural development can be a real force for sustaining farm families as well.
Mr. PETERSON. Let me just add I grew up in a real small town in Missouri. That town has changed quite dramatically since then. It is being undergirded by a much more diverse kind of economy than it was in my time. It was all production agriculture at that time. There is still some production agriculture, but now it is alongside of a river that has tremendous recreation opportunities. It is a famous hunting and fishing area and a place for people to visit. A lot of people are moving back to that area as they retire and people can live there and through the Internet can have jobs that they used to not have. .
I think we need to look at rural development within a broader context, which is what is being said here. It is certainly going to involve conservation and production agriculture, but probably a different mix than it had once before, and that is one of your challenges, I think, to see what that mix might be.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NELSON. Just one quick example. Even in a State like North Dakota, tourism has almost caught agriculture in terms of the percent of gross domestic product in that State. And it floored me when I saw that statistic, but it is growing at 35 percent a year. Things like Lewis and Clark have helped. But certainly what we are looking at is finding ways of working with the State to diversify the source of income and the economy, because if we do not the State will go nowhere and we will continue our population drain.
And I am afraid that is the same pattern we are seeing through the middle of the country, where commodities are typically produced. So we are trying our best to take a fresh look at the landscape not as simply a place to grow food and fiber, which it will always be about, but to see it as a place that has great natural amenities and can have a great attractiveness to people who come for other reasons, either tourists or hopefully to live there ultimately. And with the new economy coming on, finding those kind of places, a quality of place that that is where they want to live and work, not because they are farmers but because of the way the landscape is and looks.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. The subcommittee thanks the panel for your insights and continued input as we work through this, and we have great expectation that whatever we come up with you will help us work with the appropriators on.
Without objection, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from witnesses to any question posed by a member of the panel. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Craig Cox
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today representing the Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS). My name is Craig Cox; I serve as Executive Vice President of the Soil and Water Conservation Society.
SWCS is an international, not-for-profit professional society, founded in 1943. Its mission is to foster the science and art of natural resource conservation. Our 10,000 members include professionals ranging from technicians who work one-on-one with landowners to researchers who seek to improve our basic understanding of conservation problems and solutions. Our members provide the scientific and technical foundation for implementing the conservation programs that are the subject of today's hearing. Agricultural policy and the farm bill, therefore, are critically important to our members.
Last spring, SWCS initiated a two-year project, Seeking Common Ground for Conservation, to help shape the conservation provisions of the 2002 farm bill. We invited state and local leaders with first-hand experience of the strengths and weaknesses of current agricultural conservation policy and programs to a series of five regional workshops. Participants representing the agricultural, water resources, and fish and wildlife communities mapped out a continuum of reforms to conservation and farm policy. SWCS took that map and developed specific recommendations that, in our best professional judgment, hold the most promise for addressing the hopes and concerns of the workshop participants.
Those recommendations are detailed in our new report, just released this morning, entitled —Seeking Common Ground for Conservation—A Farm Bill Proposal: Responding to the Grassroots.— We are pleased to provide members and staff with copies of the report this afternoon. Additional copies can be obtained by contacting us at pubs@swcs.org or from our website at www.swcs.org/t—seeking—intro.htm.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In brief, workshop participants told us that the next farm bill must be about more than the price of corn—or wheat, or cotton, or rice, or any other agricultural commodity. It must be about caring for the land and keeping the people who work the land on the land. Participants were increasingly skeptical traditional commodity-based subsidies to achieve these goals.
Policymakers face fundamental choices as they begin reauthorizing the farm bill. Those choices go to the heart of what should be expected from conservation and farm policy. They should force an answer to two questions: (1) What do we want from conservation, and (2) what do we want from agriculture?
At a minimum, conservation policy and programs need to be strengthened so they can continue their traditional service to agriculture—but updated to address the environmental challenges that now confront farmers and ranchers. That will require a doubling of the current investment in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation technical services and financial assistance programs. New investment should ensure that all three compartments in the conservation tool box—technical services, financial assistance for conservation on working land, and financial assistance for land retirement and restoration—are well stocked with effective tools that work for agriculture and the environment. The first priority for new investment should be a doubling of funding for technical services and a tripling of funding for conservation on working land.
New funding should be accompanied by a series of minor and major reforms of existing programs and policy. The most important of those reforms are reaffirming the central place of technical services in the conservation endeavor, providing real authority and flexibility to states to tailor Federal programs to their unique circumstances, and simplifying the process of participating in Federal conservation programs by basing that participation on producers' conservation plans rather than on the administrative requirements of individual conservation programs.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But settling for the minimum would be a mistake at this juncture. Instead, reforms to conservation policy and programs should be coupled with a new vision for farm policy itself. Traditional farm subsidies should be balanced with a new option based on land stewardship.
Congress should authorize a minimum of $3 billion dollars annually—in addition to the $5 billion recommended to expand the reach of existing conservation programs—for a stewardship-based farm and ranch program that rewards producers for using their land, labor, and capital to enhance the environment. This new farm and ranch program should reward good actors through technical services and maintenance fees to keep existing conservation systems and habitat in place on their operations. It should also pay farmers and ranchers more who want to do more by installing new conservation systems. USDA state technical committees, local communities, and producers themselves should play a key role in seeing that the new vision stewardship program achieves key conservation objectives by determining which conservation systems and opportunities would make the greatest contribution to environmental enhancement at state and local levels.
In combination, these two reform agendas would create an agricultural policy that is truly open to all of agriculture and built on a solid foundation—the unique status and responsibility of farmers and ranchers as the caretakers of this nation's land, water, and wildlife. Our new report makes a series of recommendations for action to implement both reform agendas. I would like to highlight a few of those recommendations and the reasoning that led to their formulation for your consideration.
REFORMING CONSERVATION POLICY AND PROGRAMS
Conservation entered farm policy in the 1930's during a time of crisis—economic and ecologic. The role of conservation then was largely to serve agriculture by developing and managing soil and water resources as a means of enhancing agricultural production and rural development. Now, however, the challenge for agriculture and conservationists has changed. Environmental performance is becoming a key determinant of the commercial viability of agriculture. Producers operating animal feeding operations or irrigating cropland or pasture already are facing fundamental questions about the environmental sustainability of their operations.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Agriculture cannot escape the consequences of its environmental effects anymore than agriculture could escape the effects of land degradation in the 1930's. That is not because agriculture is bad, but because agriculture is big. More than half of the land area in the 48 contiguous states is agricultural land—cropland and grazing land. Almost 90 percent of all precipitation that falls in the continental United States falls on privately owned agricultural or forestland before it runs into streams, lakes, or underground water. About 70 percent of wildlife species depend upon private land for their habitat. The pressing question is whether we will organize ourselves to face this modern conservation challenge the same way we faced our historic challenge.
Existing conservation programs and policy can meet this new challenge just, as the challenge of the 1930's was met. But they must be updated and dramatically strengthened. At a minimum, legislative action in the next farm bill must strengthen USDA conservation policy and programs enough to ensure that commercial viability and environmental quality become compatible goals.
Funding. Funding for existing USDA conservation technical services and financial assistance programs should be doubled to about $5 billion annually—an increase, in percentage terms, comparable to what was accomplished in the 1985 farm bill. That investment produced dramatic reductions in soil erosion, protection of wetlands, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. Since 1985, however, conservation funding has been flat in constant dollars. As a result, USDA conservation programs cannot meet producers' or the public's demands for conservation and environmental quality. USDA conservation programs remain dramatically oversubscribed. For example, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in 2000 recorded 3,171 offers on 567,000 acres that went unfunded. The unmet funding need, $524 million, was nearly four times the amount of money appropriated for the program that year. Likewise, only 30 percent of the 53,961 producers who applied for Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds in 2000 were awarded contracts. Funding needs were more than twice the $174 million available, and many producers reportedly did not apply for the program because of the limited number of contracts awarded in prior years.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The farm bill must make a major new investment in conservation to meet the needs of agriculture and taxpayers in 2002. Policy and program reform alone simply cannot close the conservation gap and serve the long-term interests of producers and taxpayers. Doing more with less is not a viable option.
Balance among tools
There are three basic compartments in the conservation tool box: (1) technical services—research, education, and technical assistance; (2) financial assistance for conservation on working land—integrating conservation into the food and fiber production systems used by farmers and ranchers; and (3) financial assistance for land retirement and restoration—shifting the primary focus on working land from food and fiber production to habitat restoration or protection of critical natural resources. Today, the toolbox is unbalanced.
In 1985, 97 cents of every financial assistance dollar from USDA supported conservation on working land; 3 cents were spent on land retirement. In 2000, land retirement accounted for 85 cents of every financial assistance dollar from USDA, while 15 cents went for conservation on working land. Over the same period, the Federal investment in research, scientific and technical support, and direct technical assistance remained essentially flat, increasing less than 1 percent annually.
Most of the new investment in conservation should be used to strike a better balance among tools. Funding for technical services should be doubled to about $1.75 billion a year, and financial assistance for conservation on working land should be tripled to about $1 billion annually. The $5 billion conservation budget we recommend would thus strike a better balance and still leave room to increase funding for land retirement and restoration programs by about 30 percent.
Technical services. Weakness in this nation's technical services infrastructure is the single greatest impediment to meeting the conservation needs of landowners and the public's desire for environmental quality. Ultimately, farmers and ranchers do conservation; public programs do not. Timely, accurate, and appropriate advice and information from technically trained advisors in the public and/or private sectors is the key to successful conservation. Without it, financial aid is likely to be wasted or, worse, misdirected. In many cases, good technical advice alone is all that is needed to help producers implement conservation systems that promise economic as well as environmental returns.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
More money for technical services—as recommended above—is the first step toward solving this problem. But we also need to change the way we think about technical services. Since 1985 technical assistance has shrunk from 60 percent of the conservation budget to about 30 percent of the conservation budget. This growing emphasis on financial assistance reflects a conclusion among policymakers that the primary barrier to implementation of conservation systems on farms and ranches is cost. Many studies, however, show that lack of knowledge, rather than cost, is the primary barrier to adoption of conservation systems by farmers and ranchers. The next farm bill must recognize and affirm technical assistance as the most important conservation program in and of itself—not merely a cost of delivering conservation financial assistance to producers. Congress should ask the Secretary of Agriculture for an action plan and estimated funding needed to ensure that all producers have access to timely and effective technical assistance from the public and/or private sectors.
Flexibility. Conservation is a national interest, but like health care and education, it depends on local leadership. State and local leaders, whether they work in the private sector or in Federal, state, or local government agencies, need greater authority over the way USDA programs operate in their states. Some workshop participants recommended block granting new and existing funds for USDA conservation programs to states as a means of achieving this objective. Block grant proposals, however, raised serious concerns among many participants about accountability and potential redirection of funds from objectives that are extremely important to those programs' constituents.
Instead, we think the innovations in program implementation used in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) should be expanded to touch all USDA conservation programs. States, at their choice, could develop a single, comprehensive state conservation plan that would propose changes in implementation of any or all Federal programs needed to meet state conservation objectives. Approved plans would provide much greater flexibility in program implementation and spark creative and innovative approaches to meshing local, state, Federal, and private programs and initiatives.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
States should be rewarded for undertaking such an endeavor, however, with more than flexibility and authority. They should also gain access to additional dollars. We envision a USDA-administered Conservation Partner Fund, created by using a portion of the funds appropriated each year for all USDA conservation financial assistance programs. Funds annually made available for conservation financial assistance programs—above a designated funding threshold for each program—would be pooled and made available, much like a grant program, to states that develop a comprehensive state conservation plan as outlined above.
Taken together, expanding the state plans and agreements pioneered in CREP and WHIP, with funding providing through a Conservation Partner Fund, could provide much of the flexibility proponents of block grants seek while maintaining the integrity and accountability of existing conservation programs.
Fairness. Ensuring that all producers in all regions have access to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be a major step forward in achieving greater fairness in conservation programming. CRP accounts for more than 80 percent of the nation's current conservation financial aid spending. But one-third of that funding goes to five states, all in the Great Plains, and only land with a cropping history is eligible for enrollment. Substantial progress has been made in opening the CRP to additional states with implementation of the continuous sign-up and CREP initiatives. More could and should be done, however, particularly in regard to the limitations imposed by the cropping history requirement, to enroll land in the CRP. That cropping history requirement limits the application of CRP on rangeland, pasture, and other land that could provide substantial environmental benefits. That requirement also puts at a disadvantage those good actors who have already installed conservation practices otherwise eligible for the continuous CRP sign-up.
Cropping history requirements for CRP should be modified to permit enrollment of environmentally sensitive acres of rangeland, pasture, or other land without a cropping history, at appropriate rental rates, and eliminated for all practices eligible for the continuous CRP sign-up. Congress should mandate at least a 5-million-acre goal for conservation buffers within the CRP and encourage participation through higher financial incentives and greater flexibility in practice requirements.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Simplification. The multiplication of stand-alone conservation programs—each with its own unique value, but also its own unique planning, application, and eligibility requirements has created a confusing situation for landowners and for field staff. The notion of program consolidation, however, met with overwhelming opposition from workshop participants. Instead, we are recommending other, less dramatic steps to simplify the process of implementing programs for producers and field staff.
The first step we recommend is to make the producer developed conservation plan the basic entry point for multiple conservation financial assistance programs. Instead of producing multiple, often fragmentary plans to secure participation in a particular conservation financial assistance program, we would like to see producers work with technical advisors to develop a more comprehensive plan that integrates conservation into the farm and ranch operation in a way that meets a producer's economic and environmental objectives. That single producer driven plan should meet the planning requirements for all USDA conservation programs and open the door to eligibility under multiple financial assistance programs to implement the plan.
Second, we think simplification of EQIP is a particularly important objective given its importance as the only major source of financial assistance for conservation on working land. We think EQIP could be much improved by taking steps to move toward a continuous sign-up process and by reducing the upfront planning burden placed on producers and field staff. The single most important reform should be to eliminate the statutory bidding requirement that, as implemented, requires substantial upfront planning to apply for assistance. Instead, we recommend that a ranking process be used to estimate the projected environmental benefits from participation. Those producers already approved for participation, then, would only need more in-depth conservation planning. Producers and staff would have more certainty, and the environment would be better served.
Reforming Farm Policy and Programs. Expanding the reach of existing conservation programs—as recommended above—should be the minimum expected from legislative action in the next farm bill. But it will be a serious mistake, for agriculture and American taxpayers, to settle for the minimum at this juncture.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Participants told us it was time —for a new vision for agriculture— as one participant put it. They wanted a new farm policy that supported—through conservation—all agricultural producers, producing all kinds of crops and livestock, on all kinds of land, in all regions of the country. Their goal was to keep people on the land, and they were skeptical about the effectiveness of traditional approaches to supply control, price support, and income subsidies. They recognized that producers who relied on production of subsidized commodities for a large share of income from their operations had become very dependent on government payments. But they worried that such dependence was unsustainable and not in the best interests of agriculture, taxpayers, or the environment.
Concerns about traditional farm programs. Abundant and cheap supplies of food and fiber, income support for struggling farmers, and economic support for rural communities are the three most often stated objectives of traditional farm policy. Those traditional policies are being challenged on their ability to address all three of these objectives.
Underlying all of the questions being raised is the fact that major structural changes have taken place in agriculture. In 1999, according to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), almost 70 percent of the value of all crops and livestock was produced by 8 percent of producers operating just 32 percent of all farm acres. From the standpoint of crop sales only, 8 percent of farmers accounted for 68 percent of crop sales from just 32 percent of all farm acres. The productive capacity of American agriculture is a miracle. In fact, American agriculture is so productive that it is questionable whether subsides are needed anymore to ensure an abundant and cheap supply of food and fiber.
The distribution of government subsidy payments has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as production of subsidized commodities has concentrated on fewer and fewer farms. For example, about 47 percent of government payments in 1999 went to the 8 percent of farmers accounting for 68 percent of crop sales. Ninety-two percent of producers operating 68 percent of farm acres and producing 42 percent of crop sales shared the remaining 53 percent of government payments. As a result, the distribution of government payments diverges from what most taxpayers would recognize as equitable or efficient income support.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fundamental changes in the nature of rural economies also have reduced the effectiveness of farm subsidies as economic development engines for rural communities. According to another ERS study, only about 37 percent of farm subsidies payments went to farmers in counties where those payments would be expected to play a significant role in the local economy.
At the same time, recognition of the importance of farmers and ranchers as natural resource and environmental managers is growing. Working land—land used primarily to produce food and fiber—is, literally, the last frontier for environmental enhancement. Just as the land use and management decisions made by producers can impair the environment, those decisions also can create fish and wildlife habitat, contribute to clean and abundant supplies of water, protect against the risks of climate change, and create recreational opportunities.
More balance in farm policy. Room should be made in farm policy itself for a program that supports farmers and ranchers based upon their unique role as caretakers of most of the land in this nation, rather than as producers of commodities that, more often than not, are in oversupply.
The traditional tools of farm support clearly have their place in a new farm policy. Those tools will be particularly important for those producers who depend largely or exclusively on income from sales of undifferentiated commodities—the raw materials of the modern food and fiber production system. But we also think there is great advantage to agriculture and taxpayers by bringing on line new tools that hold greater promise for all of agriculture, rural communities, and taxpayers. Those new tools should include research, marketing assistance, rural economic development, and conservation, among others. Most of those tools really are not new. What would be new is a farm policy that seeks to create a better balance in policy attention and funding among the tools—a balance based on clear recognition of the realities of the current structure of agriculture, the food and fiber system, a global economy, and the environment.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conservation has unique advantages as a component of a more balanced farm policy. For taxpayers, conservation at the center of farm policy would allows us to go beyond damage control, and even pollution prevention, to widespread environmental enhancement. To go beyond meeting minimum standards required by regulation to release creativity and entrepreneurial spirit in the service of conservation and environmental quality. Working cooperatively with the nation's farmers and ranchers as partners in environmental enhancement could become the third leg of this nation's conservation stool complementing land acquisition and regulation where needed—to create a balanced approach to environmental management.
For agriculture, such a policy change would create the opportunity to use conservation to help keep people on the land and to escape some of the contradictions created by current farm policy. The land and its management would drive conservation rather than the amount or kind of commodities produced. That means all farmers and ranchers, producing all kinds of commodities, in all regions of the country could participate in environmental enhancement.
Conservation could and should reach those 92 percent of farms operating 68 percent of the acres, but producing only 31 percent of the value of food and fiber products. Though many of these producers are not big players in the commodity market or international trade, those producers are, or could be, big players in the conservation market. Producers in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and France can compete in corn, soybean, wheat, and beef markets; they cannot compete with this nation's farmers in contributing to clean water or fish and wildlife habitat. The environment is a niche market, but one in which every farmer and rancher has a niche.
Using conservation as a basis for support programs would provide more options for policymakers and producers, instead of attempting to fit an increasingly diverse and complex agricultural sector into a one-size-fits-all subsidy program. This nation could diversify agricultural policy to reflect the needs and unique circumstances of different farming and ranching operations. It could design a policy that works for those handful of producers who dominate commodity markets and trade, and it could design a policy that works for all those other producers in whose hands the country entrusts the management and care of most of its land, water, and wildlife.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Stewardship-based option for agriculture. Congress should authorize a minimum of $3 billion dollars within farm programs for a stewardship-based farm and ranch program that rewards producers for utilizing their land, labor, and capital to enhance the environment. This new program should be open to all agricultural producers of all agricultural commodities in all regions of the country.
This new program should reward good actors through technical services and maintenance fees to keep existing conservation systems and habitat in place on their farms and ranches. It should also pay farmers and ranchers who want to do more by installing new conservation systems. Those payments should be determined by (1) relying on local input to identify the environmental goods and services of most value to the local community and relying on states to harmonize those values with state and national values, (2) calculating payments based on ''level of effort'' as estimated by cost, on a preliminary basis, of the practice and any economic value forgone until the technical capability to quantify benefits directly is strengthened, (3) distinguishing between ''maintenance costs'' and ''installation costs'' when valuing existing versus new investments in conservation, and (4) tithing the funds made available to the new vision program to invest in the research and testing needed to develop tools to estimate environmental benefits
We think the issue of what taxpayers should be expected to pay for and, alternatively, what farmers and ranchers should be expected to pay for themselves will loom large, especially if billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are at stake, as we recommend. This issue has already been raised, for example, in implementation of EQIP. Large, confined animal feeding operations have been declared ineligible for financial assistance for the design and implementation of manure management structures. The determination of who gets paid and what they get paid for involves questions of justice, fairness, and social values, in addition to environmental goods and services. Failure to resolve such issues could and probably will create a serious stumbling block for implementation of a program that achieves the vision created by our workshop participants.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think the best way to resolve these issues would be for local producers and citizens—with guidance from USDA state technical committees—to define a ''minimum bar'' over which producers must pass to become eligible for payments under the new vision program. This minimum bar would represent a general agreement between producers themselves and local citizens on those conservation practices that are considered a minimum obligation of land ownership and those practices that go beyond that minimum and deserve taxpayers'— support.
The new stewardship-based farm and ranch program could and should be designed to complement existing conservation programs in five key ways—be available to all producers based on their willingness to make a commitment to conservation; prevent conservation problems before they require more expensive treatment; spur widespread enhancement of the environment rather than damage control; emphasize a transition to production systems that enhance, not just protect, the environment; and emphasize development, field-testing, and demonstration of innovative production systems that integrate conservation directly into food and fiber production.
Reaffirm and strengthen conservation compliance. The role for compliance measures in a new farm bill was a contentious issue for workshop participants and during our deliberation leading to the recommendations in this report. A fully funded, effective conservation program of the magnitude envisioned in this report would be the preferred way to jumpstart conservation and environmental enhancement on farms and ranches across the country. However, the history of funding since 1985 clearly shows that actual appropriations often lag well behind authorized levels, and many new and promising conservation financial assistance programs have floundered because of lack of funding.
We think it is appropriate to affirm and strengthen current conservation compliance measures to address the following key concerns. Workshop participants were nearly unanimous in their sense of injustice if producers were allowed to break out fragile land and subsequently be subsidized by taxpayers for enrolling those acres in CRP or another conservation program. Participants thought this was an affront to good stewards and a prime example of conservation programs rewarding the wrong behavior. The so-called ''super sodbuster'' provision had, in the past, addressed this issue by precluding the breaking out and cropping of highly erodible land if a producer had already enrolled in the CRP.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Crop insurance, revenue insurance, and other legitimate programs to help producers manage risk can create significant incentives to bring fragile and risky land into production. Crop insurance is currently exempted from compliance provisions—an exemption created to encourage participation and reduce reliance on annual disaster payments. Crop insurance reform with its increased subsidies, however, appears to have spurred participation in the program, and the potential for heavy reliance on revenue insurance as a mainstay of risk management and income support suggests to us that it is time to extend conservation compliance to crop insurance and any new insurance-based approaches to risk management and income support that may be authorized in the next farm bill.
Finally, the highly erodible land provisions of the 1985 farm bill, though effective, appear to have left unaddressed an important segment of the nation'—s soil resources. About 50 million acres of nonhighly erodible land is, according to the 1997 National Resources Inventory, eroding at rates exceeding the soil loss tolerance. Asking producers who receive subsidies to take action to achieve a significant reduction in erosion on those acres—less than 15 percent of total cropland—would go a long way toward finishing the historic task started in the 1985 farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you today. A review of the testimony posted on the Committee's website makes it clear that shaping a comprehensive farm bill is a daunting task. The competing visions and priorities reflected by that testimony is evidence of the complexity and importance of agriculture to the economy, the environment, and taxpayers. SWCS would like to offer help whatever way we can as you undertake this task.
Statement of David Stawick
Chairman Lucas and Congressman Hilliard, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Alliance for Agricultural Conservation is a new project of the agribusiness firms that have sponsored the National Conservation Buffer Council for the past three years. These partners are: Cargill, Inc.; ConAgra, Inc.; Farmland Industries, Inc.; Monsanto Company; Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. The Buffer Council is pleased to note that we have reached the one-million-mile mark on the way to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's goal of the establishment of two million miles of new conservation buffers on private agricultural lands by 2002.
The mission of the Alliance for Agricultural Conservation is quite simple: to advocate additional financial incentives for farmers and ranchers to apply conservation measures on and in association with working agricultural lands.
Our emphasis on conservation on working lands is not unique. For example, Congress realized the challenges of working lands conservation when it developed the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as part of the 1996 farm bill. We are pleased to see that a wide variety of agricultural commodity and conservation groups are also strongly advocating additional attention to working lands at this time.
The farm bill debate provides all of us the opportunity to boldly increase our efforts to spur conservation on private lands with the same vigor President Theodore Roosevelt employed as he championed public land conservation a century ago. A Roosevelt biographer wrote that the President's conservation program was ''great forward-looking statesmanship.'' That same vision and leadership is needed today for private lands conservation.
The environmental challenges that face America's farmers and ranchers are daunting. Foremost is water quality, from Total Maximum Daily Load regulations to hypoxia strategies at the national level, down through a matrix of steadily proliferating state and local initiatives. Confined livestock raise water quality and odor issues. Soil erosion continues to bedevil us. And agriculture is also looked to as an important source of wildlife habitat.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Society in general will benefit from the environmental improvements that will follow from increased adoption of the ''Core 4'' conservation practices—conservation tillage, integrated pest management, nutrient management and conservation buffers. In light of these benefits (including cleaner water and air, with attendant monetary savings) and because many farmers and ranchers are not in a position to pass along the net costs of their conservation activities, it is reasonable that society assist landowners in defraying these costs. In a nutshell, this is the justification for the additional incentives we seek for agricultural producers.
The Alliance for Agricultural Conservation suggests four strategic issues that should be addressed in the conservation title of the next farm bill. These issues and related policy options follow.
Address shortages in incentives for conservation practices on working agricultural lands. As mentioned earlier, EQIP was a tremendous step forward, owing to the mandatory nature of its funding, its targeting to environmental priority areas and, of course, its aim at working lands. Although EQIP's $200 million authorization was a sizable annual investment, it falls far short of demand, which has in recent years been more than $600 million.
As you are aware, many colleagues in agricultural and conservation circles have developed estimates of what it will take to assist landowners in dealing with the widening circle of environmental challenges. A number of livestock organizations—reporting from agriculture's water quality ''front lines''—testified at an earlier hearing of the need for at least an extra $1.2 billion per year in incentives for nutrient management. Looking at the panoply of expectations society is placing on agriculture, I would say this is a conservative estimate.
In addition to more incentive funding, we would suggest two improvements to EQIP or whatever program might succeed or accompany it in the future. First, the priority area concept should be strengthened by an ongoing enrollment process for practices returning particularly high environmental benefits. This would be similar to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) continuous signup option for buffer practices, which has been much more farmer-friendly than the regular CRP's periodic national enrollments. Second, while selective targeting has been positive, it may now be appropriate to place some of the new funding in regions other than priority areas. This would promote the ethic of conservation on all working lands and widen the base of support within agriculture for conservation funding.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Leverage Federal conservation funding through market-based initiatives. In many regions there may be strong but yet untapped economic justification for state or local governments, utilities or business entities to provide incentives to landowners who adopt conservation practices. For example, a drinking water supplier facing the necessity (and cost, which will be passed along to rate-paying customers) of building new treatment facilities might find it much less expensive to instead go up into its source watershed and pay farmers and ranchers who voluntarily make additional reductions in pollutant discharges, therefore obviating the need for increased treatment.
This might be done by establishment of local ''best management practice (BMP) funds,'' from which EQIP-style payments could be channeled to participating landowners. The premiere example of this concept is located in the source basin for New York City's municipal water supply, which has extensive dairy operations. Another approach might be through a system of pollutant ''credit trading'' in which large industrial point sources contract with individual farmers to voluntarily reduce their pollutant output in the same watershed. By purchasing such a ''credit'' from an agricultural landowner, the point source would be relieved of some of its discharge reduction requirements.
While the examples I have mentioned have focused on water quality, similar approaches could be used to promote carbon sequestration. Depending on the outcome of international negotiations on global climate change, carbon sequestration could be a nascent environmental opportunity for farmers and ranchers.
What role might the Federal Government play in these otherwise market-based strategies? The most effective might be to assist in the capitalization of BMP funds or credit trading scenarios. For example, in qualifying projects, the Federal Government might put in $1 for every $2 or $3 that a nonFederal entity or business contributed to a BMP fund or dedicated for buying pollutant credits. The Federal money would have to be passed through to farmers.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BMP funds and credit trading are not a substitute for other incentive programs such as EQIP but they hold the potential for focusing intensely on problem areas. Intriguingly, they also change the reality of some conservation practices from net monetary expenses to new sources of value and income for rural landowners. Finally, considered from the perspective of the Congress, the ''leveraging'' effect of these market-based initiatives can dramatically multiply the benefits of Federal investments in conservation.
Increase agricultural landowners' access to conservation technical assistance. In contrast to the burgeoning environmental challenges to farmers and ranchers, the ability of the Federal Government to provide necessary technical assistance to landowners has, in real terms, actually declined. Staffing levels for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service have fallen by about 2,100 positions in the past decade.
Ponder this daunting statistic concerning the development of comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs) as proposed under the Federal Government's animal feeding operation strategy. NRCS has estimated that at current staffing levels, it would require 30 years to provide the technical advice necessary for all the landowners who might be required to have the CNMPs.
I want to be clear that AAC strongly supports the NRCS and the local conservation districts with which the agency partners to deliver technical aid. We also believe NRCS should receive more support from within USDA and we hope Secretary Veneman will make this a priority. But we also would suggest that current realities and likely future demands dictate a rethinking of NRCS's role in the delivery of conservation technical assistance.
One option to consider would be to focus NRCS field staff on the needs of landowners with limited resources (in practice, this is already the case in many areas). Simultaneously, the needs of larger, better capitalized landowners could be met by private sector entities such as crop advisors, engineers, agronomists and farm managers whose qualifications to make conservation recommendations are certified by NRCS. Again, this is not a radical notion; NRCS already has a third-party certification process.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What I am suggesting is not a proposal to reduce NRCS's budget or human resource levels. In fact, it is conceivable that increases in either or both could be justified under the scenario I outlined. But recent history strongly suggests that NRCS, as currently focused, will not receive the increases in funding necessary to provide the technical assistance that is needed in the countryside.
Examine a comprehensive national policy for working lands conservation. Our nation's natural resources are protected by a patchwork (some might say a ''crazy quilt'') of sometimes-overlapping laws and regulations authorized by several statutes under the jurisdiction of different congressional committees. While the environment is generally well served by this regime, it can produce exasperation for landowners and actually produce barriers to better environmental stewardship.
A classic example involves wetlands. They are protected by the ''Swampbuster'' program laid out in the 1985 farm bill and administered by USDA, and by the multi-agency program authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Not only do these initiatives overlap, they have different criteria. Then there are water quality programs. Federal-level legislation includes the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act, which yield various Federal and state regulations.
Meanwhile, our conservation incentive programs such as CRP and EQIP either implicitly or, in some cases, explicitly, are geared to help landowners meet the requirements of the laws and regulations I just mentioned. But there is no guarantee—no ''safe harbor,'' if you will—that participation in one of these incentive programs will result in compliance with pertinent environmental requirements.
This is one of the situations we sometimes see in our society that we jokingly remark would prompt an intelligent life form from another planet so say, ''Who thought this up?'' The answer, of course, is well-meaning members of Congress who serve on different committees. And well-meaning executive branch officials who work for different agencies.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of this disparate authority, you in the Agriculture Committee cannot bring order to this situation alone and you probably cannot do it in the next farm bill cycle. But you may want to consider taking a near-term step that can start down the road to streamlining. While it might be argued that we have enough government commissions, you might want to consider in the next farm bill authorizing some sort of panel that could identify legislative and regulatory overlaps, point out the congressional jurisdiction barriers to what might be called traditional harmonization strategies (joint or sequential referral of bills, conference committees with members from multiple authorizing committees, etc.), and suggest strategies for moving legislation that could bring landowners more regulatory certainty.
Another option might be to direct USDA and the agencies charged with carrying out the various environmental statutes to undertake a similar review and report to Congress. Such an approach might produce not only a legislative roadmap but also more immediate protocols between Federal agencies (and, where appropriate, state regulators) that would provide more encouragement for landowners to undertake conservation activities.
I close with two final suggestions that impact on all the strategic issues I mentioned. First, delineate goals for what the conservation title of the next farm bill should accomplish through voluntary, incentive-based programs. Should we try and reduce agriculture nonpoint source pollution by 25 percent? Maybe 50 percent? What about soil erosion? What percentage of our lands should meet the soil loss tolerance? How should we harmonize confined livestock production with expanding urban boundaries? What support is appropriate for landowners currently implementing conservation measures? Answers to these questions will lead you to more rational decisions on how much should be spent on incentive programs—and increase the likelihood of receiving the political support necessary to secure new funding.
Second, make environmental performance your guiding beacon in this process. As you debate conservation incentive programs and the next generation of commodity programs, there may be proposals from some circles to effectively combine the two into some sort of ''green payment'' scenario. The environmental hook could be to pay farmers for what they're already doing, which is not necessarily a bad idea. But the end result could be to get little new conservation on the ground. Such a gambit might be a clever way of justifying government payments to farmers but it would ultimately be cruel to landowners staring down the gunbarrel of environmental regulation and hollow for urban dwellers who also stand to benefit from conservation on working agricultural lands.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Alliance for Agricultural Conservation.
Statement of the Native Seed Trade Association
The Native Seed Trade Association (NSTA) proposes that the production of native seed be included among the permissible enterprises within the Conservation Reserve Program. Ideally, the efficacy of this proposal will be tested over several years in a pilot project that includes a number of different habitats around the country. We believe that native seed production dovetails perfectly with the interests of the CRP and that such a pilot project will be an inexpensive means of demonstrating its value. Below, we will briefly describe the native seed industry and underscore how it fits into the CRP. We will also summarize our research among prospective participants in such a pilot project in Southwestern Georgia. Finally, we will outline the details that we feel will give the pilot project the greatest opportunity for success.
THE NATIVE SEED INDUSTRY
What are native seeds?. Native seeds are the seeds of plants that naturally occur in a particular region. Because these plants are naturally adapted to this region, they thrive without the sort of assistance that most agricultural crops require. For example, NSTA warns against irrigation or fertilizing, because these practices will eventually deplete many of the advantages that native plants offer. In part, because of these characteristics, native seed is in great demand.
Who buys native seed? Native seed is essential in any attempt to restore native habitat. Many government agencies at all levels of government are large consumers of native seed. Since February 3, 1999 Executive Order 13112 [Invasive Species] et al. have formalized this governmental demand for native seed. And yet, the production of native seed is a mere fraction of the demand. In fact, there have been numerous interagency meetings to discuss the shortage of native seed. In addition to the governmental market there are hundreds of small businesses conducting restoration programs on public and private lands. Almost all of these require native seed. Almost all have difficulty obtaining the seed they require. A growing native seed industry will allow small farmers and private enterprise to solve one of government's more intractable problems.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How is native seed produced? In order to begin a native seed farm, the producer must first gather enough native seed to serve as founder stock. Out of this stock he rears his crop. Because even this initial seed is difficult to purchase, much of it is wild harvested. The producer finds large remnant stands (populations) of native plants, then he gets permits from the owners of that land to collect the seed, and then he uses this seed as founder stock for a crop of native plants on his own land. Many native plants take several years before they become financially productive. This process can be difficult and time consuming.
How does native seed production fit into the CRP? he CRP seems designed with native seed production in mind. All of the goals of the CRP are robustly fulfilled by the production of native seed on CRP acreage. Here are some effects of native seed production and how they relate to the interests of the CRP:
The Family Farmer acquires an alternative crop to protect his farm. The CRP, like all USDA programs aimed at the small family farmer, seeks to find ways of preserving this way of life. Native seed can be a lucrative crop—often selling for hundreds of dollars a pound. By permitting the production of native seed, the CRP will offer the farmer a long-term alternative to commodity crops without compromising any of the other goals of the CRP. However, developing a productive native seed crop can take several years; CRP rental payments will provide farmers the opportunity to enter this growing industry.
Native seed production is an ideal means to prevent soil erosion. The CRP began with the goal of abating the erosion caused by farming on marginal lands. The crop of native seed producers will be the native plants that pre-date agriculture in those locations. These plants are usually perennials and are never harvested completely. The soil is always under cover. Moreover, because the plants are native, they are highly adapted for success in that soil.
Native plant production will permanently remove land from the production of commodity crops. Another early factor in the CRP was the desire to support commodity prices by removing marginal land from production. In fact, one of the criticisms aimed at the program has been that its effects are too impermanent. For example, once acreage comes out of the program, the farmer has little incentive not to replant in commodity crops. If, on the other hand, the farmer is permitted an alternative crop, his impetus back toward the commodity crop is diminished.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Native plants are exactly the right habitat for local wildlife. CRP has become one of the most successful methods for protecting critical habitat for wildlife and rare plant communities. The methods used to produce native seed not only protect habitat, they extend it.
THE SOUTHWEST GEORGIA EXAMPLE:
The American Farmer does not want help. He wants the opportunity to help himself. This is why, all over the country, farmers are experimenting with alternative crops. The Native Seed Trade Association believes that converting marginal land to the production of lucrative native seed makes sense for many farmers. In particular, land under the CRP seems ideal for native seed farming.
Of course, the question is whether the farmers themselves would be interested. In researching this issue, we visited with several farmers in the 2nd and 8th Districts of Georgia. Our visit was not intended to be a thorough survey; we only wanted to speak with one or two local farmers about their experience in the CRP. The response, however, has been overwhelming. Over 100 South Georgia farmers have called or e-mailed expressing an interest in participating in this project. In addition to the farmers themselves, several local organizations have indicated a desire to participate in developing this project. For example, The Jones Ecological Center has indicated a willingness to provide support to the Native Seed Trade Association and any group of local farmers willing to begin production of native seed.
It is the farmers, though, who offer the most enthusiasm for the project. Farmers are normally conservative, skeptical people. They are realists. And, when they hear about the potential of native seed production, they ask hard questions. In the end, they believe they can make it work. Ultimately, they will be the ones who will have to.
THE PILOT PROJECT
After listening to the farmers of Southwestern Georgia, the Native Seed Trade Association has formulated an outline of a program that will have the faith and backing of the farmers who would participate. This program involves the proposed changes to the CRP regulations, but it also requires commitments from the farmers, various local organizations, and the Native Seed Trade Association
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The mission of the NSTA is to promote the production and availability of native seed. One of our principal objectives is to encourage traditional farmers to undertake the production of native seed. Even if farmers receive CRP rental payments, they will still need other forms of assistance. NSTA understands that its role will be to provide comprehensive training programs in all aspects of native seed production. Perhaps most importantly, farmers and their cooperatives will need ongoing technical advice and the support of other native seed producers from around the country.
Our mission in Georgia is to organize cooperatives of farmers interested in alternative crop opportunities. The methods used in the development of this cooperative would serve as a model for creating other native seed cooperatives in areas of the country where demand for seed is the greatest [e.g. the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions, and the great burn areas of the West.] The rental payments required to build incentive among traditional farmers must be at least $100/acre—we arrived at this number by talking to traditional crop farmers (e.g. soybeans, peanuts, corn, cotton) and all of them concurred that it would not be worth their effort if the rental payments were less than $100/acre. There was also a strong consensus among the farmers with whom we spoke that they would not participate if the permitted acreage were less than 25 acres. Because of the miniscule quantity of seed stock available to start the program, only a few acres can be planted in the first year. We recommend that there be incremental increases in acreage as seed becomes more available for planting. We are advising farmers to begin with a small parcel in the range of 25 acres to begin a founder population and that with each subsequent year they will be able to plant more acreage as more seed is accumulated with a maximum of 25 acres being the target for each of the 10 farmers in the duration of the Pilot Project.
We will develop and implement a training program to teach farmers how to identify remnant populations of native plant communities, how to harvest a breeder or founder population of seeds from those remnant sites, how to plant those seeds in a particular species assemblage that matches the ecosystem they will be growing in, how to harvest the seeds from that planting and how to begin planning and planting for larger scale harvests. They will be trained in how to clean and process the seed and also how to market their product. This training program will be segmented and held over an 18 month period. As most of the native plant species of interest are perennial grasses, establishment of these grasses will take at least 3 years. Once the native plant species have become established and are growing in a healthy and stable system, seed harvest will then begin. The actual planting of natives will be in grassland/meadow/pasture type settings with high species diversity that will contain a 70:30 mix of grasses and forbs (flowering plants). This is the best system to restore ecosystem health by creating critical native habitat that fits into the surrounding environment.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, NSTA recommends:
To provide adequate incentive for farmers to invest in native seed production, rental payments should be at least $100 per acre.
We [NSTA] would require that each farmer include a minimum of 25 acres in the native seed production program.
We require source identified ecotype seed. The founding or breeder population of seed must match the ecotype in which it will be grown and NSTA will coordinate the source identification requirement.
The planting will be done in meadow/prairie like situation with a composition of native cool and warm season grasses and native forbs. The ratio of at least 7 species of grasses and 3 species of forbs (flowering plants).
The period of the pilot project should be a minimum of 10 years
No harvest of grass seed can take place for the first 5 years as it will take that long to get the level of production economically and environmentally viable.
Harvest of the seed will take place every other year after the initial 5 years and rental payments will be reduced by 50 percent in those years.
For those farmers who want to participate but do not want to produce seed and have an interest in producing organic Hay - the same rules will apply.
All seed from each ecotype area (conservation district) will be harvested and processed under the supervision and management of the local native seed producers cooperative. Each cooperative will be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the particular ecotype seed for their region. All seed will be processed in the cooperative and will be marketed and sold by the cooperative.
The Native Seed Trade Association would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to express its views on the Conservation Reserve Program. If any members have further questions concerning native seed production or this pilot project, we are always available to offer our advice or hear your recommendations.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Jamie Clover Adams
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the conservation provisions of the next farm bill. My name is Jamie Clover Adams. I am the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, and I appear today on behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and my fellow Secretaries, Commissioners, and Directors from across thee Nation.
What I will present today is the broad outline of a bold, new environmental program for the 900 million acres of America's open space resources that are under the care and stewardship of our agricultural producers. This new state ''Agricultural Stewardship Program'' would be a ''block grant'' type initiative designed to give state and local governments greater flexibility, innovative tools, and resources to implement agricultural conservation priorities. At the outset, I need to stress that the proposal we are offering for the Subcommittee's consideration is a work in progress. It is the result of extensive discussions over the past several months among the Secretaries, Commissioners, and Directors of Agriculture from throughout the country, formally adopted as a NASDA policy recommendation during our midyear meeting in February. Since then, we have refined and elaborated on our proposal after discussions with other stakeholders and stand ready to further refine it with input from this Subcommittee.
Significant gains have been made in addressing traditional agricultural environmental concerns over the past decade. Soil erosion has decreased, as has the loss of wetlands, and wildlife habitat has been enhanced. We credit existing conservation programs for a good deal of this progress and recommend their continuation with increased funding, along with some modifications that I will mention near the end of my testimony.
Although we have been making progress in several conservation areas, the scope and range of environmental challenges faced by our farmers and ranchers have expanded, while environmental regulations have increased and changed along with the public perceptions, priorities, and the science that underlie them. My colleagues and I strongly support and encourage the use of existing USDA-managed conservation programs. At the same time, many of us have recognized that successfully meeting the new environmental demands is a ''make or break'' challenge for the farmers and ranchers we serve. We have begun to move on our own to try and fill the gaps in existing programs.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These initiatives have taken different forms in each region of the country, reflecting state and regional differences both in what our farmers produce and in the most pressing agricultural challenges that they face. For example, the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) created a Pesticide Management Area (PMA) in the Delaware River Basin of Northeast Kansas to limit the input of atrazine and other soil-applied herbicides into area surface water. Many agencies and entities assisted KDA to gather data and educate area residents, including the State Conservation Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, Kansas State University and Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The primary goal was to bring the amount of the chemical atrazine to below three parts per billion in area surface waters.
Voluntary recommendations were developed for agricultural uses according to the tillage practices being used by the farmer. Further, after the PMA' inception, atrazine makers amended the Federal pesticide label to lower recommended application rates and adopted other water quality protection practices developed for the Delaware PMA program. The proposal also suggested application methods and encouraged using alternative weed control practices, stream buffer zones and vegetative buffer strips.
I11 Kansas State University published recommendations in an atrazine Best Management Practices (BMP) guide which had been developed through work at the Foster Farm research site. The Kansas State Conservation Commission (SCC) offered a pilot incentive program ($5/acre) to farmers in one critical watershed (Mission Lake) to encourage adoption of KSU-recommended BMPs. Further, farmers were contacted on more than one occasion by both the SCC and a KSU Extension employee dedicated to the project. Participation was nearly 100 percent. (Only one farmer did not participate because he grew soybeans only and did not use atrazine.) Outreach to farmers and property owners was the biggest challenge. Cooperating agencies worked hard to make cost-share incentives available to producers but, in point of fact, personal contact was equally, if not more, important to the success of the Delaware PMA. Finally, all waters in this area have been removed from the atrazine-impaired waters list except Tuttle Creek (which receives 80 percent of its pesticide load from Nebraska). Kansas and Nebraska are now working together to address this remaining issue.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other states like New York have focused on nutrient management planning for dairy producers as a key environmental challenge, developing the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program to provide direct technical assistance to dairymen and cost sharing for need improvements. The New Jersey Urban Conservation Action Partnership concerns itself with the issues that arise when farming coexists with urban and suburban development. Southwestern states are looking at programs that have a large water conservation component—an issue that is front and center in many parts of the country.
Each of these new state programs is designed to supplement those that already exist to help farmers carry out their stewardship function and bear the cost of what we see as substantial public benefits: open space conservation, resource preservation for future generations, and clean air and water. Each is voluntary, incentive-based rather than sanction-based, designed to address local needs while complementing existing programs, and carried out in collaboration with all the Federal and State agencies already engaged in local environmental management activities.
NASDA has testified before other congressional panels concerning environmental questions such as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Our goal will always be to assure that legislation that effectively mandates huge investments in new technology and new management practices does not put good farmers and ranchers out of business. We will continue to work on all fronts to preserve a sensible regulatory environment. At the same time, we understand that the rules of the game will keep changing.
NASDA' proposal builds on existing planning systems and infrastructure—it does not duplicate existing programs. Our intent is to fill in the gaps, which will only increase in the future due to changing public expectations and regulatory requirements. This new approach will provide a better ''toolbox'' and tools to meet these needs. The potential benefits and rewards of our program are enormous because it would:
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reach all producers, thus provide greater environmental benefits overall;
Give states flexibility to address their most critical problems;
Target resources to where they are most needed on a site-specific basis;
Increase local buy-in to find workable solutions;
Emphasize preventive measures, which are more cost-effective and offer more economic returns;
Simplify program delivery;
Address the expanding list of new problems (i.e., carbon emissions, etc.)
The state departments of agriculture also stand ready to work with the Subcommittee to examine resource and funding delivery and needs. This is a high priority and the key element for an effective Federal-state partnership in agricultural policy. We believe that there is a strong public policy argument for Federal cost sharing to help agricultural producers deal with changes in what the public expects in the way of environmental management. A good analogy would be the assistance provided by the Federal Government over the past three decades in upgrading municipal water treatment facilities to meet Clean Water Act requirements. Today our waters are cleaner than they have been in generations. Thanks to Federal support for necessary local investments, this enormous progress toward a national goal was accomplished without bankrupting small cities and towns.
Today, public expectations, increased regulation and a growing list of environmental challenges are demanding on-farm environmental enhancements that are beyond the short-term and long-term economic payback for producers. For example, many conservation practices have high capital or management input costs, but do not generate additional revenues. Agriculture is not organized in a fashion that allows increased costs of production to be passed on to consumers. As such, on-farm expenditures for conservation compete directly with servicing farm debt and other family financial needs. In addition, implementing more stringent and complex standards usually increases the need for more costly approaches and technologies. Farmers are ready to do their part in accomplishing current and future national environmental goals. However, what will be expected of a cattle feeder in North Dakota will be quite different from the challenges faced by citrus grower in Florida.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our Agricultural Stewardship Program asks the Federal Government to recognize two key facts:
A one-size-fits-all approach toward helping agriculture meet the environmental challenges of the next decade will leave some regions and the producers of some crops or livestock products out in the cold.
Local leadership is required for designing and implementing realistic programs, focused on what local stakeholders agree are the most pressing local agricultural environmental problems.
Our State Departments of Agriculture stand ready to provide that leadership. As I have noted, many are already moving forward to design and implement effective producer-oriented environmental programs, utilizing local and state resources. Programs like Kansas' Pesticide Management Area (PMA) have the potential, given the resources, to assist even more producers for the benefit of the environment and our agricultural industry.
NASDA believes that an effective state ''working fund'' for agricultural environmental stewardship will have these characteristics:
Funding will come through cooperative agreements between USDA and State Departments of Agriculture, which will be the lead agencies in designing and carrying out programs; similar to the way State Revolving Fund grants are provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the states upon approval of an Integrated Use Plan;
Program parameters will recognize activities designed to enhance protection of land, water, air and wildlife in the broadest terms possible, without duplicating existing planning systems and infrastructure;
States will have the flexibility to allocate dollars between payments to producers and/or technical assistance, based on local needs and priorities;
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Producer participation will be voluntary, incentive-based, and targeted toward those environmental enhancements that are supported by sound science and produce measurable results;
Contract payments to participating producers will be made on an annual basis;
All programs will have provisions to protect individual producer privacy and data confidentiality.
Farmers and ranchers have provided tremendous environmental gains through participation in conservation programs established in the 1985, 1990, and 1996 farm bills. These programs are generally working well. However, limitations and inequities are preventing these programs from achieving their full potential. Let me now briefly outline our suggestions for changes in three existing environmental programs.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) - NASDA recommends that WHIP be redirected with the addition of a Critical Habit Incentive Program (CHIP). This addition would dedicate a specific proportion of resources within an increased WHIP appropriation to carry out voluntary critical habitat enhancement, and would give a higher priority to enhancement of critical habitats within the program as a whole.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - NASDA has several recommendations, starting with our proposal that states be given more flexibility and discretion to decide eligible conservation practices. We further noted that:
The national size restriction for EQIP livestock projects limits opportunities for producers. The 1,000 animal unit threshold may seem large in Michigan, but it is small by Kansas standards.
Many practices outlined in the EQIP guidance for livestock practices do not work well for smaller producers and those who may work other jobs-a category of producers that is increasing in many states.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The program should allow for one-year contracts and should remove the $50,000 payment cap.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - NASDA recommends that approved maintenance of land enrolled in the program should include grazing, under the following conditions:
NRCS has determined that maintenance is required on the land to maintain plant heath, ground cover and/or improvement of wildlife habitat;
Grazing must be high-intensity and short term, to provide benefits that may be more environmentally beneficial than burning, disking, clipping, or spraying;
The CRP rental payment is reduced at a rate equal to the value of the forage or the maintenance fee; and
The payment, time of year, and frequency of maintenance will be according to a determination by the local technical committee.
In closing, I would like to note NASDA' strong view that, budget realities notwithstanding, investment in agricultural environmental stewardship should not be viewed as simply one more category of farm program spending. Should it be viewed in that way, a substantial additional investment in support for producer-level environmental enhancements will tend to trade off against unrelated programs designed to address consequences of low and unstable farm prices. An environmental stewardship ''working fund'' will not address the potentially disastrous implications of another year of low farm commodity prices, or point the way to stable long-term solutions to the underlying financial problems facing American agriculture. However, we know that our proposal will help us keep those farming and ranching operations that are most heavily burdened in helping achieve environmental goals from folding while we work to improve opportunities for growth and profitability in agriculture as a whole.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Speaking for all my state colleagues, I appreciate this opportunity to present views on how we can support good agricultural environmental stewardship in every region of the country. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to develop a Federal agricultural policy that provides necessary tools for a healthy and profitable agricultural industry and to help farmers and ranchers continue to be good stewards of the land. Thank you.
Statement of R. Max Peterson
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is R. Max Peterson. I am the Executive Vice-President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Association was founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association is a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
The Association appreciates this opportunity to present to the Subcommittee our perspectives on farm bill conservation programs. The Association believes that agricultural conservation programs established under the 1985, 1990 and 1996 farm bills, have been some of the most important, significant and successful fish and wildlife conservation endeavors in the last 30 years with significant, tangible on-the-ground benefits. The farm bill has proven to be an effective mechanism for delivering both financial benefits to landowners and public benefits in the form of affordable food, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and soil and water resources. As a result, conservation programs continue to enjoy broad bipartisan support.
As you are aware, the State fish and wildlife agencies have broad statutory authority and responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources within their borders. The states are thus legal trustees of these public resources with a responsibility to ensure their vitality and sustainability for present and future citizens of their States. State authority for fish and resident wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence of specific, overriding Federal law. The State fish and wildlife agencies thus have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal agencies for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species and anadromous fish. Because of our responsibility for and vital interest in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, we have significant vested concerns in agricultural conservation programs.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The conservation and sustainability of fish and wildlife resources depends on the availability and quality of their habitat, much of which is found on agricultural lands. The State fish and wildlife agencies recognize, appreciate and respect the fact that about two thirds of the land (i.e., habitat) in the United States is owned by private landowners. We also know that most private landowners want to be good stewards of their property and many embrace conservation as a prominent goal for their land management objectives. We believe that the State fish and wildlife agencies have generally enjoyed very good relationships with agricultural landowners, and the majority of those landowners are willing to work with the agencies to include fish and wildlife with their other land management objectives.
The Association believes that the key to unlocking the full potential of farm bill conservation programs is to focus on voluntary, incentive-based programs that provide:
Funding sufficient to address landowner demand for program enrollment and technical assistance;
Flexibility in program implementation to address regional and local differences in how program objectives can best be achieved; and
Income support for conservation practices on a wider array of farms, ranches and forests in all parts of the country.
Another important aspect to the success of current and future programs will be to insure that they are part of a comprehensive national agricultural policy to prevent different incentive-based programs from working at cross purposes and to address the public's expectations regarding the level of conservation benefits derived from tax dollars expended.
Commitment of State Resources to farm bill Conservation Programs
Before presenting the Association's views on specific conservation programs, I believe it is important to recognize the commitment that many of our State fish and wildlife agencies have already devoted toward making these programs work for wildlife and for the landowner. One way of doing this is to provide technical expertise at all levels of program planning, implementation and evaluation so that fish and wildlife needs are considered throughout the process. Another way of doing this is to provide dollars for cost share, including equipment and materials. States are making substantial contributions in both manpower and money. Current contributions to farm bill conservation programs recently identified by just 14 states include over 5.4 million dollars for cost share and over 300,000 hours, or the equivalent of 145 full time employees, assisting NRCS with program implementation. Just three examples from around the country include:
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation—Spent 1,115 hours last year assisting NRCS with implementation of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). The Department also provided $50,000 to private landowners for habitat improvements through the Department's own Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, which is a landowner cost-share program that often supplements funding of USDA WHIP contracts.
Missouri Department of Conservation—Providing 50 biologists and $900,000 in cost share this year to deliver fish, forest and wildlife technical assistance to private landowners in cooperation with NRCS.
California Department of Fish and Game—Since 1996, the CDFG has made direct cash contributions of $3,677,521 to WRP restoration projects and easement acquisitions, expended $114,080 on wetland management agreements on WRP lands, and dedicated $90,000 toward two wetland biologist positions for technical assistance with WRP.
These examples demonstrate the continuing commitment of the States to the successful implementation of farm bill conservation programs, and are just a sample of how these programs leverage nonFederal funds to multiply resource and landowner benefits. Additional and significant financial and technical resources come from various NGOs, such as Ducks Unlimited, and Pheasants Forever, who are also providing testimony today as part of a strong and growing coalition of wildlife conservation partners that support farm bill conservation programs. The Association applauds their efforts and looks forward to continuing the constructive partnerships between the NRCS, State fish and wildlife agencies and these organizations that will make every farm bill conservation dollar go even farther.
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS TO ADDRESS DEMAND FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
With the introduction of new conservation programs and the elevation of wildlife to co-equal status with soil erosion and water quality as a resource to be addressed in program implementation, the challenge has been to bring all the potential resource benefits to fruition on the ground. This requires adequate technical assistance by resource professionals. It is imprudent and unrealistic to expect FSA and NRCS to deliver existing, invigorated or enlarged programs under current staffing levels. Work analysis studies within USDA have substantiated what staffing levels would be needed to fulfill program objectives. These studies should be used as a road map on the way to staff recovery. To address staffing shortages, alternatives such as reimbursement to State fish and wildlife agencies and others who have the capability and expertise to deliver technical assistance, should be considered.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As was already mentioned, State fish and wildlife agencies are contributing staff time to help NRCS field offices service fish and wildlife aspects of USDA assistance to private landowners. Such partnerships can help NRCS deliver specialized technical expertise to private landowners at less cost than adding staff with this expertise. But, this will only work if state and local partner contributions result in additive staff. The Association strongly encourages the creation of a challenge grant program in USDA that would stimulate partnering arrangements between NRCS and State fish and wildlife agencies and others that result in cost efficiencies. Such partnerships will be able to more effectively and efficiently provide the specialized technical expertise necessary to deliver conservation programs to producers as originally intended by Congress. Funding for monitoring and assessment of conservation programs, which can also be conducted through partnerships, needs to be included in allocations for these programs.
The Association believes the following existing and proposed conservation programs are complementary and can work together to address regional and local differences in conservation priorities, land values, regulatory requirements and public expectations. The Association respectfully offers the following farm bill conservation program recommendations:
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The Association believes that no other conservation program has provided the quantity and quality of environmental benefits on agricultural lands as the popular CRP. In addition, this program has contributed to stability in the agricultural economy. We believe a CRP with an enhanced enrollment of 45 million acres can and will do more to achieve the objectives of long-term stability to the agricultural economy and long-term benefits for fish, wildlife, soil and water conservation. This program provides significant wildlife resource benefits. Bird species such as pheasants, ducks and grassland songbirds have been major beneficiaries. Pheasant populations have more than doubled in several states due to CRP. It is estimated that in one year alone (1994) three million additional ducks were produced in the Dakotas and Montana because of CRP. CRP helps address the decline in grassland bird species, which are 21 times more abundant on CRP fields and 32 times more likely to hatch than on adjacent farmland. CRP has been and can be a proactive conservation strategy for addressing the needs of declining species before they reach a point when listing under the Endangered Species Act is necessary.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The value added from CRP lands to local economies from hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities is also significant. The USDA's Economic Research Service estimates the value of CRP's improvements to wildlife viewing and pheasant hunting at $704 million per year. In addition, the nonmarket benefits of soil erosion reductions by CRP is estimated to be $694 million annually. Since the ERS believes these numbers understate the true value of CRP contributions to wildlife and to reductions in soil erosion, CRP alone represents a minimum of $1.4 billion in nonmarket benefits a year.
The Association's members want to ensure that CRP lands deliver wildlife as well as soil and water benefits throughout the contract period. With this objective in mind, we believe it would be most productive for wildlife if cost-share was structured so that planting cover crops that are locally best suited for wildlife do not cost the landowner anymore than planting cover crops that are not as good for wildlife (often the lowest cost choice). Appropriate management and maintenance strategies on enrolled lands are also essential to the continuation of soil, water and wildlife benefits throughout the life of the CRP contract.
The key to improving the CRP program is to avoid the one size fits all approach. By providing the flexibility to manage CRP lands according to specific regional needs identified by resource professionals working on the ground with landowners and coordinating their efforts through State Technical Committees, additional conservation benefits can be realized for all resources.
Flexibility in CRP has been enhanced with the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP is a state-Federal conservation partnership program that allows for the flexible design of conservation practices and financial incentives that address specific environmental issues. Currently 15 states have CREP agreements that provide $481 million in non-Federal funds to a $2.26 billion program. The opportunity for states to enter into CREP agreements should be reauthorized in the 2002 farm bill, and the process for a state to participate in a CREP should be streamlined.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Association believes that the Continuous CRP Sign-up (Buffer Initiative) has the potential to provide significantly more water quality, erosion control and fish and wildlife benefits if some changes are made. In order to increase the interest and success of this program, action needs to be taken to: 1) increase agency promotion at the state and local level; 2) streamline, simplify and reduce program rules; 3) increase agency staff to address landowner interest and aid in program outreach and education and 4) provide an up-front rental payment structure. We believe these actions would increase participation, boost farm income/cash flow, and provide a concurrent environmental enhancement.
Short-term Soil Restoration Program. A soil restoration program of short duration (3–5 years) can enhance soil and water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat, conserve energy and bolster commodity prices. The resource benefits generated by this program can also help producers comply with regulatory standards (i.e., TMDLs). It is imperative that this new program be constructed outside of CRP goals and dollar constraints so as not to imperil the CRP, the nation's greatest soil, water, and fish and wildlife enhancement program. Appropriate cover establishment goals should insure all of these benefits.
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). Never before have so many producers voluntarily stepped forward to protect, enhance and preserve the nations wetlands under appropriate public compensation for their efforts. According to the Economic Research Service, agriculture is the single largest source of U.S. wetland restoration. Popularity of the program remains very high with a 5:1 ratio of applications to approved projects. Hundreds of qualified applications submitted across the Nation cannot be accepted without expansion of WRP, which will reach the current authorized cap of 1,075,000 acres this year. We believe that it is simply good business to increase the enrollment cap annually by 250,000 acres and appropriate the necessary funds for enrollment. Producers could enroll and thus insure themselves against the increased risk of farming those economically marginal acres, add immediately to their cash flow, and improve fish and wildlife habitat, thereby helping to avert endangered species controversies.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). The originally authorized $50 million for WHIP was literally snatched up by anxious and willing farmers with little public announcement of the availability of funds. In many cases more than half of the offers were left on the table and thousands of farmers were turned away for a lack of funds. Implementation of WHIP provides enhanced fish and wildlife value, improved recreational opportunities and marketable outdoor experiences. This is a significant program on non-farmed lands and is of signal importance in the northeastern US because of demographics, cropping history, farm size and a host of other variables that render other authorized farm bill programs less applicable. This program has resulted in many partnerships between NRCS and non-Federal organizations, resulting in tremendous leveraging of non-Federal dollars. The Association recommends that $100 million annually be authorized for WHIP.
Grasslands Reserve. Owners of grasslands are also at risk and deserve income enhancement considerations. Native grassland habitat continues to be in short supply and is likely to decrease if not buffered from competing uses. A substantial suite of grassland dependent birds have suffered precipitous declines but are capable of recovery with conservation and stewardship management of the remaining grasslands. A voluntary, incentive-based program needs to be made available to help small family grassland owners stay on the land, as opposed to their lands being sold for ranchette development or converted to row crop production. The opportunity exists to provide income enhancement and grassland conservation through an easement program similar to WRP that would be applicable to a wide variety of grasslands/rangelands around the country, but would be directed at the most vulnerable habitats based on state or regional priorities.
Forest Legacy and Farmland Protection Programs
The Association's members continue to be concerned about the adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat resulting from conversion of farmland and forestland for development. Both the Farmland Protection Program and the Forest Legacy program can help prevent further habitat fragmentation, retain open space and maintain wildlife populations on the landscape close to rapidly expanding urban areas. Both of these programs should continue with adequate funding. The Association recommends at least $100 million annually for each program.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Forest Stewardship Programs. The Association recognizes the importance of forest stewardship programs and their potential for enhancing fish and wildlife habitat on the 350 million acres of non-industrial private forestlands in the United States. We recommend funding the Forest Stewardship Program and the Stewardship Incentive Program at $50 million per year for each program. All plans should be reviewed and approved by a wildlife biologist and a forester.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP is another very popular program that, according to testimony provided to this Committee by the NRCS two weeks ago, has averaged about 3 to 6 times the number of applications that could be approved with available annual funding. EQIP plays an important role in the conservation of lands in production and can be very useful in helping farmers and ranchers meet current environmental regulations and avoid potential future regulatory requirements (e.g., TMDLs and CAFOs). This program could logically be integrated into any new conservation program specifically designed for lands in production. The Association recommends funding this program at $300 million annually and allowing funds to roll over into subsequent fiscal years so that project planning and implementation is not interrupted simply because the Federal fiscal year has ended. We also recommend that fish and wildlife resources be recognized as co-equal with soil and water resources and fully integrated into program delivery.
Comprehensive Approach to Agriculture Programs. The Association thanks the Subcommittee for considering conservation programs in the context of a comprehensive farm bill because we believe that conservation and commodity programs must be designed to work in concert. The soil, water and fish and wildlife benefits achieved through voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs targeted at the most environmentally sensitive lands should not be offset by other programs that provide incentives to put those same types of lands, such as wetlands and remnant native grasslands, into production. A national agriculture policy that provides assistance for producers in the form of crop insurance, loan deficiency payments and emergency payments should also include protection of sensitive lands through reauthorization of swampbuster and sodbuster along with adequate funding for the popular CRP, WRP and the proposed grasslands reserve program. Program coordination will be a key to achieving a comprehensive agricultural policy. This coordination requires the continuation of land retirement and withdrawals balanced with active conservation measures on lands still in commodity production. It must be remembered that all of these lands are ''working'' lands that generate different sets of products. The reality is that CRP and WRP are working lands for their production of renewable wildlife populations, development of natural vegetative communities, and for their conservation of soil and water resources.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Producers from all parts of the country should be able to use the soil, water and fish and wildlife benefits generated from the suite of voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs to help meet existing environmental regulations and to avoid or minimize the impacts of potential future regulatory requirements. As mentioned in recent testimony from both the Farm Bureau and the livestock industry, many farmers and livestock producers face, or will likely face, regulations concerning water quality. Many producers are also concerned about the regulatory impacts of the Endangered Species Act. With regard to the ESA, the Association recommends a proactive approach to examine how farm bill conservation programs can assist landowners in enhancing habitat for declining species that are not yet listed. Greater management flexibility exists prior to listing and if management actions are effective, listing can be precluded by the use of voluntary, non-regulatory incentives that insure sustainability of the species and their habitat.
The key point is that assistance in addressing regulatory requirements can and does come from programs designed to remove sensitive lands from production as well as programs designed to conserve lands that remain in production. The approaches should be viewed as complementary. The existing programs need adequate funding and any new conservation programs need to be funded over and above base conservation funding.
In conclusion, the Association appreciates your consideration of these recommendations and our member state fish and wildlife agencies stand ready to work with you to address conservation and farm income enhancement as mutually sustainable items on the nation's agriculture policy agenda.
Statement of J. Read Smith
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am J. Read Smith, a farmer from St. John, Washington and a conservation district supervisor from the Palouse Rock Lake Conservation District Board. Along with my wife and son, we run a small-grain farm and ranching operation in the Palouse Region of eastern Washington. I am President of the National Association of Conservation Districts and I appreciate your invitation to be here today to share conservation districts' recommendations on conservation programs administered by the US Department of Agriculture.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Association of Conservation Districts is the nonprofit organization that represents the nation's 3,000 conservation districts and 17,000 men and women ''district officials'' who serve on their governing boards. Conservation districts are local units of government established under state law to carry out natural resource management programs at the local level. Currently, conservation districts work with NRCS and others to provide technical and other assistance to more than two-and-half million cooperating landowners and operators to help them manage and protect their land and water resources. Conservation districts encompass roughly 98 percent of the private lands in the United States.
I am here today to represent the views of those 17,000 conservation district officials. But more than that, as locally elected or appointed public officials, collectively we represent the American public; all of the constituents in the districts we serve. As we talk today about USDA's conservation programs and the next farm bill, I urge you to keep in mind that we are the people who work at the very point where the programs you authorize are delivered to the customer.
Mr. Chairman, I will focus my remarks today on a new vision conservation districts have for private lands conservation in America. We also have a number of recommendations for adjusting and maintaining the conservation programs currently authorized by statute, which I will discuss in Part II of my statement.
A New Vision of Conservation
The private working lands that comprise America's farms, forests and ranches represent 70 percent of our nation's land—nearly 1.5 billion acres. That working land provides us not only with food and fiber for our own use, but with an array of exportable goods as well. It provides an economic engine and a tax base for rural communities and nearby cities.
But private lands also provide us with many intangible benefits. For example:
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nearly 90 percent of the rain and snow that recharges our water supply falls on private land.
About half of the nation's endangered species rely on private land for at least 80 percent of their habitat.
Private lands are the vital bridges among public refuges, the links that prevent wildlife communities from becoming isolated from each other, threatening biodiversity.
Many of our open space and scenic vistas are on private lands.
Private lands are important in sequestering carbon and producing bioenergy products.
In setting the tone for the next farm bill, Congress has a new opportunity to elevate the importance of private lands conservation by creating incentives to better manage and protect those lands. We believe that expanded, voluntary, locally led and incentives-based initiatives will be the solution to helping America achieve its environmental goals.
Two years ago, we at NACD established a task force to examine how the farm bill conservation programs are working so far and look at what is needed to elevate and expand conservation in this country beyond what we're now doing. This task force included a former chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the president of a major land-grant university and farmers, ranchers, district officials and district employees, representatives from state conservation agencies and from private industry.
Our task force began its work by developing a set of guiding principles, both simple and straightforward, to help crystallize our vision of what is needed to strengthen private lands conservation in America. We believe these principles should be the foundation upon which to refine and expand our Federal, state, local and private conservation efforts. These principles are:
Maintain a voluntary, incentive-driven approach to help private landowners and managers protect their soil, water, wildlife and related resources.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increase local leadership and involvement in carrying out programs, setting priorities, developing policies and advocating natural resource conservation and management.
Utilize science-based technology in making conservation decisions, including those for accountability and baseline establishment.
Provide land managers with the technical assistance they need to achieve conservation objectives.
Emphasize the value of cost-effective conservation practices that, for all Americans, enhance quality of life, restore air and watershed health, and contribute to safe and affordable food and fiber.
In formulating our recommendations, the task force reached out to every conservation district in the Nation for input on how our conservation programs are working now and what the workload needs are. We asked for suggestions for improving current programs and for new ideas to advance the nation's agenda for conservation. More than 1,700 conservation districts offered suggestions, ranging from modifications to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to the need for our conservation agenda to reach all communities and watersheds, not just a few targeted areas or producers.
We also contacted a wide cross-section of organizations with an interest in conservation to get their suggestions and comments. Fifty organizations responded, many with key suggestions and ideas on how we can work together to strengthen America's conservation agenda. Several of the organizations we have worked with have testified or will testify before this committee. We were encouraged to find that more than a few entertained thoughts similar to ours and we have incorporated many of their ideas into our recommendations. Our working paper, which is posted on NACD's web site, (www.nacdnet.org) invites input from anyone who is interested.
The people we surveyed as well as those we talked to at conferences and meetings, in private conversations, through postal mail and email all shared a common commitment to the cause of natural resources conservation on private lands. They also shared a common message, and the more we listened, the more similar the message sounded.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State of the Land
Since the farm bill conservation title was enacted in 1985, we've made a lot of progress in reducing soil erosion and increasing productivity. Many of the gains we've made have been the result of conservation compliance, the adoption of conservation tillage, and farmer and rancher participation in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and EQIP. Since 1996, however, the gains have slowed.
Data from the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) show that in 2000, about 37 percent of the cropland in the U.S. used some form of conservation tillage. Although this is a substantial increase from the early 1980's when it first became popular, the rate of growth in this practice has slowed in recent years. To achieve CTIC's national goal of having 60 percent of all crop acres under some form of conservation tillage by 2005, we must increase its adoption substantially over the next four years.
Reports such as NRCS's National Resources Inventory, EPA's latest 305(b) Report to Congress, the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United States 1986 to 1997 also tell us that progress has leveled off and that we still have a long way to go in meeting the nation's conservation goals.
A snapshot tells us that:
According to EPA, more than 300,000 miles of rivers and streams and nearly 8 million acres of lakes are impaired with sediment, nutrients and microorganisms.
America's private landowners have planted more than one million miles of buffer strips to protect the nation's rivers and streams. Meeting the ambitious goal of two million miles of buffers will hinge upon expanding voluntary conservation incentive programs.
Wetlands losses have fallen by 80 percent since 1986, due largely to the farm bill's wetlands conservation provision and Wetlands Reserve Program. But, sometime this year, the program will reach its acreage limit.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations is becoming an increasing concern. An estimated 272,000 animal feeding operations need technical assistance to develop sound environmental operating plans over the next 10 years.
As much as 60 percent of the nation's rangeland and 46 percent of permanent pasture are deteriorating.
Roughly 2,200 aging flood control dams around the Nation need to be rehabilitated or decommissioned at an estimated cost as high as $540 million.
Every year since 1992, an average of 2.2 million acres of farmland have been lost to development.
Although wind and water erosion was reduced by more than 30 percent on private rural lands, we are still losing an estimated 1.9 billion tons of topsoil to erosion on cropland every year.
Using existing programs and their own resources, owners of America's working lands have made significant strides in safeguarding the quality of our water, soil and air. But there's still a long way to go.
The State of Our Programs and Conservation Delivery System
The number of programs addressing private lands conservation has grown considerably over the past 20 years. That may sound like good news, but the fact is, rather than devoting more resources to more programs, we have sliced a shrinking pie into smaller pieces. This proliferation of programs has resulted in efforts that are not well coordinated and sometimes even operating at cross-purposes. Further, each of these programs comes with its own set of priorities, rules and limitations. They are often administered independently—even within one agency.
While the Federal funding devoted to private lands conservation has been going down—in real dollars, the amount is about half of what it was in the mid–1930's—state and local governments have dramatically increased their investments in conservation. Their contributions to private lands conservation have gone from virtually nothing 70 years ago to nearly a billion-and-a-half dollars today, with conservation districts fielding the same level of field staff as NRCS. But, the situation is mixed. In some regions of the country there is a true increase in funding and staffing; in others state and local level funding has leveled off or is in decline.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
States have also created additional programs to address nonpoint source pollution, runoff from animal feeding operations, wildlife habitat and other resource issues. In fact, some 38 states have developed cost-share programs with about $500 million dollars, more than matching the Federal effort.
While these state and local initiatives have helped, they have added to the already complex array of programs and are themselves not well coordinated with Federal conservation efforts. Many producers today find themselves struggling with multiple sets of rules and requirements, filling out application after application— sometimes for naught.
A major shortcoming of all these programs is their limited reach and lack of adequate funding. Many producers who are targeted by these programs find themselves turned away because of lack of resources for NRCS to provide the assistance they need. This year, for example, of the more than 86,000 producers who applied for assistance through CRP, WRP, EQIP, WHIP and the Farmland Protection Program, nearly 62,000—72 percent—were turned away. There is a critical need to reach out to more producers and to get conservation on much more of the landscape.
To sum it all up, the state of our programs today is that they are too complicated, not well coordinated, oversubscribed, under funded and serve only a small percentage of our working lands.
Our delivery system to get these services to producers is the envy of many. It touches producers at the local level, helping them find cost-effective and innovative solutions to resource issues. However, it is straining under the weight of these many programs and the limited funding available to implement them. The fact is that the increase in state and local efforts cannot even come close to making up for the shrinking Federal effort—both need to be expanded significantly.
Consider the following workload information.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two years ago, NACD and several of its partners collected extensive data on the challenges facing private lands conservation through its National Field Workload Analysis (WLA). The purpose of that analysis was to examine the staff years of technical support needed at the field level to carry out 29 core work elements each year. Most of these core work elements encompass farm bill program objectives.
The national data collected through the WLA painted a stunning portrait of the private lands workload needs across the countryside. To effectively address the total resource needs on America's private lands would require 359,734 staff years of technical assistance from all sources. If stretched over a 10-year period, this would equate to 35,974 staff years per year, at a cost of nearly $2.4 billion per year for technical assistance alone. We are just now completing a 2001 WLA and early indications are that the need has not gone down but has increased by 15 percent.
Clearly, increased investments in technical assistance will be necessary to get the conservation job done in this country.
The Path Forward
Based on the work of our task force, the results of the Workload Analysis Survey and other studies, what we heard from our partners and, most importantly, what we heard from producers and district officials, America's conservation districts believe the Federal Government needs to embrace a new approach to conservation on private working lands. Rather than creating program after program, each designed to focus on one element of the resource base, we need to adopt an approach that concentrates on the entire landscape and the needs of producers. The focal point of this new way of doing business should be the producer's conservation plan, each one tailored to meet the specific needs of each individual operation. The bottom line for our new approach to conservation is: Conservation plans should drive programs, not the reverse.
Producers don't need the added headaches of having to choose from a limited set of program options in a vacuum. A better way would be to help them determine what is needed for their operations and then let local decision-makers recommend what program or programs are best suited to their conservation plan.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe this approach would provide much greater flexibility in decision-making at the local level. Such a shift would allow us to focus on getting conservation on the ground, not on ''implementing programs.'' It also would allow us to better coordinate the existing tools in our conservation tool chest.
From virtually everyone we talked to, the message was loud and clear that a new incentives program is also needed to encourage producers to implement conservation practices. Practices that not only benefit their operations, but also produce important public benefits such as better soil, cleaner water, cleaner air and more fish and wildlife habitat. A new incentives program, fully funded and available to all producers, is needed to encourage conservation on more of the landscape. We envision rewarding at various levels producers who apply and maintain conservation practices, depending upon the extent and complexity of the conservation systems they install and/or maintain. The concept is very straightforward: The more conservation a producer puts on the land, the higher the incentive payment the producer receives.
We also envision a different option for implementing this new approach. Rather than implementing this concept exclusively through the traditional Federal approach, we think states that have the capacity and the interest should be given a greater role and have the option of implementing it themselves, in cooperation with NRCS. As I mentioned earlier, state and local governments have strengthened their capacity significantly in the past several decades and many now have the capacity to be the driving force behind the implementation of this new Federal-state-local-private paradigm.
We believe the benefits of a new incentives program and a greater state and local role in its implementation would be tremendous. It would be cost-effective and provide needed coordination among current and future conservation initiatives. It also would leverage even more state, local and private sector investment in private lands conservation.
This new paradigm also would bring more control back to the local level where decisions could be made by those who know what is needed and what works best. However, we recognize that there still would be a need for Federal oversight and review.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By calling for this new agenda, we're not suggesting that we throw out existing programs; we need those to complement what we're proposing. In fact, we strongly support better funding and broader application of the existing USDA conservation programs to help producers get the conservation on the land they need to qualify for the new incentives and to meet the requirements of new and growing environmental regulations.
In shifting the focus of our delivery system, we also ardently support enhancing and elevating the priority of USDA's natural resources and environment mission. We believe that the Natural Resources Conservation Service must be maintained as a stand-alone agency and should have the responsibility for carrying out all of USDA's non-forestry environment and natural resources programs, including both technical and financial assistance components.
NRCS should also continue its role in providing technical and financial assistance for the current farm bill and other USDA conservation programs. The agency's role in providing leadership and guidance for national programs, as well as maintaining a national system of technical standards and guidelines, should be strengthened.
Private working lands forestry programs also should be strengthened and continue to be carried out through the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry programs. Targeted toward 44 percent of America's forestlands, these important programs are implemented in cooperation with state forestry agencies and usually involve conservation districts. They provide technical and other help the nation's nearly 10 million nonindustrial private forestland owners need to plan and apply complex conservation treatments.
And where do the traditional commodity programs fit in this mix? We are by no means suggesting that our new approach supplant all traditional farm support programs. Although changes may be needed in that arena, too, producers need these programs to compete in world markets. We believe that incentives for producers to provide conservation and environmental benefits from private working lands would complement those programs and could become an important component in future farm policy. In the context of today's chaotic agricultural economy and globalization of trade, it makes sense for conservation to be part of agriculture's economic, as well as environmental agenda.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Projected Benefits
By reaching far more producers, by providing for more local control and by delivering conservation assistance effectively and efficiently, we believe our new model would provide much greater benefits across the landscape than current, top-down and highly targeted programs.
The investment required for this vision will be significant—we estimated a fully functioning incentives program alone could cost up to $8 billion annually. But we need to keep in mind that preventing resource problems now is far less costly than solving them later. We also need to keep in mind the return we'll get on that investment:
better soil;
cleaner water;
greater profits; and
a brighter future.
Even beyond these, we believe that better managing and enhancing our private working lands will result in more abundant wildlife, higher quality woodlands and wetlands, clearer air, safe and affordable food and fiber and an enhanced quality of life for all Americans.
Recommended Changes to Existing USDA Conservation Programs
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EQIP authorizing legislation establishes a single, voluntary program to provide flexible technical, financial and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers to address threats to soil, water and related natural resources on agricultural lands, including grazing lands and forestland. Although authorized for funding at $200 million annually, Congress limited funding at $174 million in fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
Requests from producers for assistance through EQIP have been overwhelming—far exceeding the amount of funds available and further stressing the already overburdened NRCS-conservation district delivery system. With additional funding, EQIP has the potential to garner tremendous environmental benefits. It also provides an opportunity to reach out to socially disadvantaged producers who traditionally have not participated in USDA's conservation programs. To further enhance the program's outreach, water quality—including irrigation water management—soil conservation and wildlife habitat benefits, conservation districts recommend extending EQIP's authorization and increasing funding to $1 billion annually. Twenty percent of this amount should be designated to fund technical assistance support of this program.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over its five-year operating period, several adjustments have been made to respond to producer concerns about how the program is being implemented. In 1999, responding to a survey from NACD, more than 1,500 conservation districts identified additional revisions, both administrative and statutory, needed to make EQIP function more effectively and efficiently.
Legislative Changes Needed to EQIP
Increase funding authorization to $1 billion annually.
Remove prohibition on expenditures being made in the same fiscal year as a contract's execution.
Provide for an annual practices component and contracts of less than five years in duration.
Remove the 10-year limitation on EQIP contracts.
Administrative Changes Needed to EQIP
Provide that a minimum of 35 percent and a maximum of 55 percent of EQIP funds, as determined by the local work group, be made available to producers outside of priority areas.
Give local work groups more decision-making authority.
Remove requirement for developing a comprehensive resource management plan prior to submitting an EQIP application.
Allow the planning process to be limited to problem areas rather than an entire operation.
Streamline the administration of EQIP by dropping the requirement for concurrence by the Farm Service Agency.
Conservation Reserve Program
The CRP provides cost-share assistance and rental payments to farmers to retire highly erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland for 10- to 15-year contract periods. In addition to dramatically reducing soil erosion on cropland by nearly 695 million tons per year, it provides myriad other benefits including stemming agricultural runoff and providing critically needed wildlife habitat. To maximize CRP's environmental benefits, conservation districts recommend, along with some program improvements, extending its authorization and increasing the acreage cap to 45 million acres.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conservation districts support the following policy changes on CRP:
CRP should continue to use the enrollment process whereby land is bid into the program with a productivity-adjusted rental rate thus reflecting the true cost of the land.
CRP should be balanced so that benefits, whether economic or environmental, occur over the full landscape of American farmland
CRP should be used to help prevent urban sprawl by extending contracts to 30 years or perpetual easements.
CRP enrollment should continue targeting through the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) with those lands achieving a high benefit also achieving the highest rental payment.
The EBI should be a product of the State Technical Committee and not designed as a ''one size fits all'' program criteria at the national level. States should retain the flexibility that will allow them to choose the criteria that give them a high EBI. For instance, if soil productivity and soil erosion are major concerns, the EBI should be structured to account for a mix of on-site as well as off-site soil erosion benefits.
The CRP should be geared toward retaining long term retention of benefits once investments by the producer and the public are made. These enrolled lands should be retained in the pool of eligible lands and producers should be offered other incentives such as easements to retain them in the program. Easements should be paid for on the value of the land based on free market factors and not on the EBI or soil productivity index.
The CRP should continue as a targeted approach as provided for in CREP if the state so chooses and provides a matching component to the targeting of Federal funds. The original intent of setting aside 40—45 million acres of highly erodible farmland in a CRP should be retained.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The goal of having 12.5 percent of the CRP acreage planted in trees should be increased with added incentives for the producer. Targeting those acres should be done at the local and state levels. Contract extensions of 10 years should automatically be offered to those who elect to plant trees rather than grass cover so producers can gain the economic benefit of planting trees at the end of 20 years.
Haying, grazing and timber harvest on CRP lands should be prohibited unless those activities conform to a district-approved plan that will maintain buffers, benefit wildlife, improve cover quality and reduce erosion. Conservation districts urge Congress to accept recommended language proposed by USDA to amend CRP to allow high intensity, short-term livestock grazing as an authorized maintenance and management practice on CRP contract lands with the authority given to state FSA Committees and NRCS State Conservationists to set the timing and criteria of this practice.
The contract provisions for CRP should not provide for an early out during the contract period since it was a mutually acceptable contract period at the time of signing. Early out provisions would further disrupt national plans to remove highly erodible, fragile or otherwise environmentally sensitive lands from production.
Conservation districts are opposed to any land-use practice that will change the contract between the producer and the Federal Government or the agreed rental rate as originally established at the beginning of the contract.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
WHIP is designed to help landowners improve wildlife habitat on private lands. The program was authorized to use $50 million in CRP funds to help producers enhance wildlife habitat. WHIP provides cost sharing to landowners for developing habitat for upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, endangered species, fisheries and other wildlife. It also provides for consulting with state technical committees to set priorities for cost-share measures and habitat development projects. WHIP has also proven to be extremely popular and exhausted its funding authorization in two years. Conservation districts recommend extending its authorization and funding the program at $50 million annually.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wetlands Reserve Program
The WRP provides assistance to farmers to restore cropped wetlands through easements and cost-share payments. In addition to its environmental and wildlife habitat benefits, this voluntary wetland protection program has been extremely popular among farmers and ranchers. Originally capped at 975,000 acres and nearing that cap, the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill authorized enrolling an additional 100,000 acres in the program. Conservation districts recommend extending WRP's authorization and allowing enrollment of an additional 250,000 acres annually.
Farmland Protection Program
FPP is a voluntary program that authorizes USDA to join with state or local governments to purchase conservation easements on important farmland threatened by conversion to other uses. It is increasingly clear that preserving farmland preserves quality of life for all citizens, including urban and urbanizing areas. It also helps guide and direct urban sprawl, thereby having inherent and popular value for everyone. Conservation districts recommend extending the Farmland Protection Program's authorization and increasing its funding to $65 million annually.
Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program
Congress enacted the Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program (CPGL) provision to provide technical, educational, and related assistance to landowners and operators on the nation's 642 million acres of private grazing lands. Funding was authorized at $20 million in 1996, increasing to $60 million by the third year. To help reverse the deteriorating trends on roughly 60 percent of US rangeland and about 46 percent of permanent pasture, conservation districts recommend maintaining the funding authorization for CPGL at $60 million annually.
Forest Stewardship Program
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) helps nearly 10 million nonindustrial private forestland (NIPF) owners—who own 44 percent of the nation's forestland—better manage and use their forest resources. Under FSP, every state has developed and is implementing a comprehensive management program to ensure that private forestlands are managed under stewardship plans. The program is cost-shared with states and provides high quality technical and stewardship planning assistance. Conservation districts recommend extending FSP and increasing its funding authorization to $50 million annually.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) and Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP)
The U.S. public derives tremendous benefits from non-industrial private forest. There is an urgent need to assure that these benefits continue to be realized. Of the 737 million acres of forest in the United States, close to half (about 350 million acres) are considered non-industrial private forest (NIPF). NIPF lands include all private forest ownerships above one acre that do not contain a wood processing facility. The majority of NIPF lands are owned by people who may have strong interest in seeing their forest managed sustainably, but simply do not have adequate knowledge or resources to do this. Given that the management of these forests has a tremendous influence on the quality of our nation's water, watersheds, air, wildlife habitat and timber resources, the owners of these lands must be provided the resources they need to assure proper management.
A recent survey of landowners with Forest Stewardship Plans—long term multi-resource management plans prepared under the Forest Stewardship Program—indicates that landowners with such plans are almost three times more likely to implement their plans if they receive financial and/or technical assistance than if they don't.
Federal funding to landowners for the implementation of sustainable forestry practices is currently insufficient. The two existing programs designed to provide financial incentives to NIPF landowners are either not funded (Stewardship Incentives Program) or under-funded (Forestry Incentives Program). Experience has taught us that neither of these programs provides sufficient flexibility for the states to 1) target their highest priority needs or 2) tailor program management to their state administrative structures.
A new financial assistance program is urgently needed and should replace the Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) and the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP). There is strong support for a new landowner incentives program from many groups that work with NIPF landowners, NACD the National Association of State Foresters and the National Council on Private Forestry.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The primary differences between this new incentives program and the former programs (SIP and FIP) are that states would have greater flexibility in determining how the funds would be used to meet national and local objectives and the percentage of funds spent for education, financial and technical assistance would depend upon the needs within each state, as determined by the Forest Service and NRCS in partnership with the state forestry agency and state stewardship committees. The new program should allow states to set their own acreage limitations.
Forest Legacy Program
The Forestry Legacy Program (FLP) is intended to conserve environmentally important forests under threat of conversion to nonforest uses. From 1978 to 1994, private forestland tracts of 10 acres or less increased from 11 million to 16.6 million acres. A well-funded Forest Legacy Program, through which landowners sell development rights and the right of public access while retaining other rights in private ownership, can, in part, help prevent the fragmentation of the nation's forestlands. It operates on a willing seller-willing buyer concept. Conservation districts recommend extending the Forest Legacy Program and increasing its funding authorization to $50 million annually.
Urban and Community Forestry Program
The Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCFP) provides the leadership, in cooperation with states, for improving and expanding urban forest ecosystems in the nation's 45,000 towns and cities where 80 percent of our population resides. The program provides leadership for state of the art technology and grants to urban areas to improve their quality of life through tree planting, maintenance and urban tree protection actions. Conservation districts recommend extending authorization for the Urban and Community Forestry Program and increasing its funding authorization to $50 million annually.
Resource Conservation and Development Program
The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program, a unique program within USDA that empowers rural people and their urban neighbors to help themselves, was extended through 2002 by the 1996 farm bill. The program assists local people by providing tools and technical support to stabilize and grow their own communities while protecting and developing natural resources.. Conservation districts recommend providing the RC&D Program with a permanent authorization and increasing the number of authorized RC&D areas to 450.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Compliance and Other Provisions
In addition to the above financial assistance programs of the farm bill, the Highly Erodible Land and Wetlands Conservation provisions (conservation compliance, sodbuster and swampbuster) of the farm bill have been instrumental in reducing erosion on cropland, pasture and rangeland, and in significantly slowing the conversion of wetlands to agricultural uses. Although enforcement of the compliance provisions has been lax in some areas fine-tuning of these provisions is needed and conservation districts recommend retaining them. We also recommend that the compliance provisions for both erosion on cropland and for swampbuster be extended to all USDA farm program benefits received, including crop insurance.
General Provisions
In addition to the above, conservation districts endorses coordinated resource management planning (CRMP) and the ''En Libra'' concept, both of which are used to address and mediate complex natural resource issues at the local level on both public and private lands. These processes also support local, producer-developed conservation plans, implemented with technical assistance provided through conservation districts to coordinate the conservation activities on a given operating unit and with protections for confidentiality.
Since the farm bill conservation programs are targeted primarily toward lands with a cropping history, the conservation districts support establishing a grassland conservation easements program to protect noncropped native lands. Since such a program would likely operate similar to the current CRP, it would be appropriate to include in the farm bill and implement through conservation districts and NRCS.
Conservation districts support strengthening conservation research and development and extension activities through the farm bill, as well as establishing goals for the nation's soil quality. Such initiatives should include the potential role of agriculture in bio-fuels, carbon sequestration and mitigating global climate change. It also encourages and supports the development of new technologies such as precision agriculture and biotechnology that can enhance both productivity and environmental quality.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All of the farm bill conservation programs should include ''safe harbor provisions'' to help producers deal with endangered species and invasive species situations. All programs also should provide tools and funding to help small and limited resource producers address natural resource issues.
Technical Assistance
In carrying out their mission to coordinate and carry out all levels of conservation programs, conservation districts work closely with NRCS to provide landowners the technical (CTA) program to provide the technical and other help farmers and ranchers need to plan and apply complex conservation treatments in implementing these farm bill programs. It is important to keep in mind that CTA is also a program. It was intended as a program in and of itself the purpose of which was to help the nation's farmers and ranchers and other landowners address their resource conservation needs by providing technical support at the local level, including non-HEL lands that are nonetheless eroding at unacceptable levels. It is critical that Congress establish stable sources of funding for the farm bill programs and technical assistance needed to implement them without detracting from NRCS's basic technical assistance mission.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank for the opportunity present our views.
Statement of Joe Cantu
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Joe Cantu and I am President of the National Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils. I am one of the thousands of volunteers who serve on RC&D councils across the country. I'm from Pipe Creek, Texas and have been a member of the Alamo RC&D council since 1993. I am here to discuss the resource conservation and development program and how it operates.
The RC&D program began as a pilot USDA effort to address conservation and economic development in rural areas. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 authorized the RC&D program. Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman designated the first 10 RC&D areas in 1964. At that time, the RC&D program focused on multi county geographic areas where major economic and social downturns had occurred. RC&D provided a voluntary, grassroots-driven effort for local residents to plan and work together to solve environmental, economic, and social problems facing their communities.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Resource Conservation and Development Program is based on a number of concepts that make it a truly unique government program. These concepts include:
Working toward the goal of community sustainability while achieving a balance between rural economic development and natural resource protection.
The value of grass-roots involvement in making decisions about local areas.
Leveraging limited federal dollars with private funds to accomplish goals.
The value of public/private partnerships in making the best use of limited resources.
Bringing USDA agencies together to focus on the same problems and opportunities.
An RC&D Area is a multi-county area locally defined, sponsored and directed to carry out a program that encourages land conservation, water management, environmental enhancement, and community development. Each RC&D Area establishes an Area plan, which is a long-term strategic plan that provides direction for the RC&D council in making community improvements and conducting its activities.
RC&D Councils are the centerpiece of the RC&D Areas. RC&D councils are comprised of an Area's sponsors and community leaders who provide grassroots involvement in the program. RC&D Council members are volunteers that include local, civic, appointed, and elected officials. RC&D Councils are non-profit organizations that work in partnership with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service through a federal coordinator. Because RC&D areas are locally organized, locally sponsored, and locally led, the program provides an ideal way for residents to join together to decide what is best for their community.
When designated by the Secretary, the NRCS provides a coordinator, office space and clerical support to the RC&D council. The coordinator assists the Council in developing and implementing its area plan.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Council holds community meetings to identify concerns, needs and problems within the Area. The Council then collects information about identified problems. It helps the community prioritize the steps needed to address the technical and financial solutions through a Plan of Work. As a nonprofit entity, the council can also seek needed dollars and leverage those funds with volunteer support and technical assistance.
Councils implement projects and conduct activities that achieve the goals and objectives of their Area plan. Each Council has a process for review and approval of the projects to insure that projects undertaken meet the regions needs. The implementation of a project may include one step or a full range of steps, such as program identification, development of alternatives, plan development, funding and coordination of the project. In most cases, RC&D projects include many worthy community projects that could not be funded directly through either local or state or federal government. RC&D councils see needs in their communities and then look to alternative sources and partnerships to get their activities funded.
The program has grown significantly over the years as a result of its ability to provide local solutions to local challenges. Today, there are 348 RC&D councils covering 80 percent of the nation and serving over 180 million people. RC&D Councils serve all 50 states, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. There are 27 new applications waiting to be designated. Other areas are in the process of completing their applications for authorization.— Our association has adopted the goal of nationwide coverage of RC&D by 2005.
RC&D is unique in its ability to identify and address local problems. We are the catalyst for bringing people together to identify their needs and then we search out funds to solve their problems. Here are a few examples:
The Cherokee Hills RC&D council in Oklahoma was instrumental in the formation of, and continues to provide technical assistance to the Tenkiller Utilities Authority. TUA now represents a coalition of more than 31 cities, towns and water districts, public and private interest and Native American tribal government entities. TUA is a large-scale non-profit organization whose mission is to supply regional water systems with affordable clean water. As result of RC&D assistance, the community is now seeing improved health standards for an underserved population; over 60,000 customers are provided with safe drinking water; uniform water quality and uniform price promote economic opportunities for the region.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Alamo RC&D in Texas received a $250,000 grant from Koch Industries to bring to code failing septic systems in rural Wilson County. The project will aid 40 rural homeowners and provides 100 percent financial assistance.
The Big Country RC&D Area in Texas is working on a project to address water quality concerns for over 30,000 people who are dependent on the surface runoff form the watersheds above Oak Creek Reservoir and Lake Trammell as their supply of potable water. Twenty agricultural producers within the project area voluntarily entered into an agreement to carry out Best Management practices through an individual tailored farm/ranch Water Quality Management Plan. Financial incentives to implement best management Practices are available to those agricultural producers participating in the program. Assistance in developing and implementing the Plans is provided through the Nolan County SWCD and the USDA NRCS.
The Glacial Hills RC&D Council in Kansas has a Small Business Development Program, which is designed to increase entrepreneurial activity in the six county RC& D region by helping to start micro enterprises. The program conducts business training and individual technical assistance. The goal is to produce a sound business plan that includes the necessary business planning and analysis that provides a road map for success for the entrepreneur. The program also designs and coordinates a series of monthly seminars that bring new ideas and speakers to the region to support new and existing business. The program has a new initiative, ''Sustaining Rural Communities Through Enterprise Development'' that provides planning and technical assistance to rural farm families with developing business plans and new enterprises that grow and market alternative crops and products direct to institutions including a local college, hospitals and nursing homes in the region. During the first 3 years the program has been operating 106 people have completed the group business training. A total of 32 new or expanded small businesses have been completed that created 70 new jobs. Data reveals that at leas $2.7 million in annual sales comes from these new startup businesses and the program is being looked at as a model for other areas and organizations.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ALA-Tom RC&D council in Alabama is very active in a small farmer revitalization effort. The Council has facilitated the formation of four cooperatives and developed basic infrastructure to provide markets for their products. Last year, in spite of a serious drought, one of the cooperatives -- the Selma/Dallas Small Farmers Association made a profit and prevented total crop failures because the RC&D council assisted them with a mulch/irrigation project. The Council has assisted the cooperatives in developing a system so that they can sell their products to the school lunch programs in Alabama and Florida. This effort has improved the quality of life for many minority farm families and stimulated the economy of a rural area.
St. John Aroostock RC&D in Maine recently did a survey of contributions over the years that shows that for each $1 donated by our sponsors, $1494 were returned to the area for RC&D projects. In 2000 over $672,000 were secured for St. John Aroostook RC&D projects. Additionally, 3133 volunteer days were donated in 2000.
RC&D councils are making a difference in America's communities and represent the entrepreneurial spirit of rural America. RC&D Councils have played a strong role in creating new businesses, education, conserving our natural resources, bioenergy development, and outreach. However much remains to be done in rural America and new issues arise all the time.
For FY2001 the RC&D program is funded at $42 million. RC&D is administered by NRCS and receives discretionary funding in the annual agriculture appropriations act. Authority exists to provide financial assistance for RC&D projects but due to federal budget limitations, financial assistance has been phased out. Councils must seek funding for their projects and they have leveraged the $42 million in appropriations into over $1 billion. USDA studies indicate that the national average cost to support an RC&D area is approximately $161,000 per designated area. The FY2001 appropriation through USDA/NRCS provides direct support of approximately $103,000 per council. Currently RC&D councils are underfunded and must do without some of their basic needs for support. Our leveraging ability to assist rural communities could be so much more effective if all RC&D councils and applicant areas were fully funded.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next, I would like to highlight our farm bill recommendations for you. To continue the good work of RC&D council volunteers to serve our communities and to assist in increasing economic development and conservation in communities that are hard hit by low farm incomes, the National Association of RC&D councils requests the following changes to the law authorizing the RC&D program:
Permanent authorization of the RC&D program
We believe that the recent growth in the RC&D program from 277 councils in 1996 to 348 councils in 2001 covering 80 percent of the nation and 180 million people is a testament to our success. Congress has recognized the valuable services RC&D councils provide to local communities and has helped to grow this program. In addition, we have successfully leveraged a $42 million federal investment into more than $1 billion annually to directly support conservation and economic development, making a continued investment in RC&D a cost effective investment for taxpayers' funds.
Update our statement of purpose and write the role of the RC&D council into the law
This recommendation is a technical change to the law. The original law authorized USDA to work with States, local units of government and non-profit organizations to achieve our mission. The structure of the RC&D councils evolved and USDA recognized RC&D councils as the entity that carried out the mission of resource conservation and development. As a result, we believe RC&D councils need to be recognized in law.
Define RC&D council and affiliation of Councils
This recommendation is a technical change to the law. The designated RC&D councils are the responsible leadership of the RC&D area. RC&D councils and associations of RC&D councils are non-profit entities whose members are volunteers and include local, civic, appointed and elected officials. Affiliations of RC&D councils are formed in states and regions.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Encourage USDA agencies to provide technical assistance
The administrative responsibility for the RC&D program is delegated to NRCS with the expectation that full array of USDA programs and service were available to assist local RC&D councils in achieving their goals. An interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) describes the shared objectives and commitments of the participating USDA Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Policy Advisory Board (PAB) member agencies. Specifically, the PAB member agencies agree to increase coordination and cooperation within the Department to make their programs and expertise more readily available to RC&D Councils and their associations working on behalf of rural areas and communities. The MOU also recognizes that the RC&D Program will serve to further the overall capacity of member agencies to deliver effective and efficient outreach services through RC&D Councils and will facilitate the development of improved linkages among and between field service units within USDA.
The following agencies signed the MOU, Agricultural Research Service,
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Economic Research Service, Farm Service Agency, Food and Nutrition Service, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural Development, Office of Community Development, Rural Development, and Rural Utilities Service.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we request that the Farm bill include legislative language that encourages USDA agencies, consistent with their mission and authorities to bolster these relationships. RC&D councils are an effective delivery system for rural America and we see no need to duplicate the RC&D concept to create new programs or entities to deliver services to rural America.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions you may have.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), established in 1911, is staffed by professional wildlife scientists and managers. Its purpose is to promote the restoration and improved management of wildlife in North America. Currently, WMI is working with various groups who support enhancement of the conservation provisions of the current farm bill. The collective priorities of several groups, including WMI, are reflected in testimony being presented to the Subcommittee by Ducks Unlimited. To supplement our group testimony, WMI would like to offer our insights concerning additional aspects of the conservation provisions of the farm bill.
The debate that will occur over the upcoming year is not an either-or proposition. Conservation and the economic viability of farms and ranches both are tied to the quality of the land. Production of wildlife, crops and livestock can exist in harmony and are necessary to provide Americans not only affordable food, but an improved quality of life.
It now has been five years since the implementation of the programs that comprise the 1996 farm bill. These programs contribute to soil, water, and wildlife enhancement across the United States. Be it growing pheasant populations in the Midwest, or enhanced waterfowl populations across the country, the farm bill has touched not only private landowners, but also your constituents who desire a better environment in which to live. However, although the conservation elements of the farm bill have made a difference, the current law is far from attaining your constituents desires and expectations.
The conservation provisions of the current farm bill have enabled private landowners to enhance wildlife habitat, and improve soil, water, and air quality in the United States. However, despite the success of the current programs, WMI believes it is important to address the remaining conservation issues on private farms and ranch lands. Thus, the solutions offered in this testimony are intended to expand and build upon the successes of the conservation provisions of the 1996 farm bill.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Current 1996 Farm Bill
The 1985, 1990, and 1996 farm bills created programs that were designed to conserve soil, water, and wildlife resources on private land dedicated to agriculture. Lessons learned since their implementation indicate that there are strong regional differences experienced by those who administer and deliver these programs, and the impacts often vary by state and county. This situation has been exacerbated by recent cuts in USDA staff, to the tune of 2,000 positions since the passage of the 1996 Act.
Landowners have taken full advantage of farm bill program opportunities to the point that efficient and effective implementation of the conservation benefits may be compromised, primarily caused by a shortage of technical assistance. To date, the ratio between acres offered by producers and those accepted by USDA is 5:1 for the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and 2:1 for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been oversubscribed by 500,000 acres.
Without a doubt, farmers and ranchers like these programs and are anxious to participate in the process of integrating conservation on America's private lands. Unfortunately, limited resources have caused these programs to fall short of landowner expectations and environmental needs. It is advantageous to discuss and highlight progress across the nation's landscape. The following regional descriptions include issues that can be addressed through enhanced farm bill conservation programs.
Western Region (AK, AZ, CA, HA, ID, MT, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY)
Since the 1996 farm bill, acceleration in conversion of native rangeland still remains a serious problem in the West. According to the1997 Natural Resource Inventory (NRI), there are about 243 million acres of privately owned rangeland in the West. This is approximately 8 million fewer acres than in 1982. Thus, preserving native rangeland is a high priority in the West.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many wetland habitats in the West have been lost, and the few that remain are further threatened by urban development. Wetland preservation is needed. For example, some of Utah's most functional wetlands, associated with the Great Salt Lake, are exposed to significant threats from urban development and the alteration of hydrology. The problems in Utah and many other parts of the West will be compounded in the future as more farmland is converted to subdivisions and irrigation systems are abandoned.
Serious declines in many wildlife populations occur when native rangeland and wetlands are converted to other uses. Livestock grazing is the dominant agricultural use of land within the region, and the amount and condition of the West's rangeland have significant impacts on grassland nesting species. According to USDA estimates, 24 million acres of privately owned rangeland are in poor condition, 19 million acres have multiple major resource problems, 80 million acres have major erosion problems, and 9 million acres of rangeland have been severely impacted by state-declared noxious weeds. Many populations of grassland-dependent birds are declining. This trend will continue until rangeland loss is stopped and the condition of remaining rangelands is improved.
Midwest Region (CO, IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, OH, OK, TX, WI)
Today, most of the native prairie of the Midwest has been lost. More than 95 percent of the tallgrass region has been converted to other uses. Iowa currently has just one-tenth of 1 percent of its 23.5 million acres of pre-settlement tallgrass prairie. Historic trends show continuing and sometimes precipitous declines in grassland-dependent birds, such as grasshopper sparrows, prairie grouse and burrowing owls. Fragmentation of prairie landscapes has been most intense in shortgrass prairie in the Southern Great Plains. The black-tailed prairie dog, once considered a pest throughout the shortgrass region, recently has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Although conversion of cropland to grassland habitat through CRP has shown improvement in nest densities on newly enrolled lands, native prairies critical to many species' survival continue to decline in acreage and quality.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Southeast Region (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA)
Over the last 30 years in the Southeast, a number of species have declined to their lowest levels in recorded history. Wildlife species associated with early successional habitats, wetlands and grasslands continue to exhibit negative population trends. The loss of native grasslands, the widespread establishment of exotic warm- and cool-season grasses (a substantial proportion of range and pasture was planted to non-native forage grasses of low value to most species of wildlife, such as tall fescue and bermuda grass) and year-round grazing have resulted in steep declines in 10 of 13 grassland birds. There also has been a steady downward trend in species such as the northern bobwhite quail. In addition, species such as the loggerhead shrike, grasshopper sparrow, lark and savannah sparrows, eastern kingbird, eastern meadowlark and dickcissel, ten federally endangered birds and six candidates for Federal listing are experiencing long-term declines.
Forested acreage in the Southeast has been stable during the last decade. However, forest composition and quality have changed, negatively impacting many wildlife populations. The diverse hardwood stands and small crop fields in the Southeast have been displaced by expanding pine plantation acres, now occupying 15 percent of the vast coastal plain. Furthermore, recent research on neotropical species has identified significant problems caused by forest fragmentation, which is continuing over much of the Southeast.
Northeast Region (CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WV)
The impacts of agriculture and forestry, combined with escalating urban sprawl, have altered wildlife habitats dramatically in the Northeast. Less than 1 percent of the old-growth forest remains, 99 percent of the grassland has been lost, and more than 50 percent of pre-colonial wetlands are gone. In fact, pasture acreage has declined by more than 70 percent since the 50's. Most of the conversions are the result of development.
Those species requiring larger blocks of early successional forests and those requiring open, secure grassland habitats are in serious jeopardy in the Northeast. Grassland bird populations have declined more then any other group of species in the past 30 years. Farmland/grassland species, such as the northern bobwhite quail, have declined by 95 percent. Grasshopper sparrow, eastern meadowlark and ring-necked pheasant have declined by 80 percent. As in other U.S. regions, fragmentation of natural habitats is an extreme and growing problem.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
More than 50 percent of the original wetlands have been lost in the Northeast. Between 1980 and 1989, about 14 percent of the wetland loss in the Chesapeake Bay watershed was due to agricultural conversion, and 23 percent was due to development. Wetland-dependent species have suffered the second largest decline in the Northeast.
2002 farm bill Recommendations
1. To address current and future technical assistance needs, funding to state fish and wildlife agencies and non-governmental conservation organizations offers an alternative to providing conservation plans to landowners who await program enrollment (issue of reciprocation for assistance). Leveraging USDA dollars with conservation organizations is an effective way to tackle technical assistance needs. The assistance provided by fish and wildlife and non-governmental organizations has, in many cases, meant the difference between success and failure for farm bill program implementation.
2. Link agricultural support payments to conservation compliance. Public monies expended via farm bill programs should be based on comprehensive land stewardship, including wildlife. Improved water quality, and soil and wildlife enhancements are byproducts of conservation compliance. As stated in a recent report released by the Economic Research Service, Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads, conservation compliance is estimated to provide non-market benefits of $1.4 billion/year. These values include impacts to water-based recreation, soil productivity, and municipal and industrial uses. This understates the true value of the reduced soil erosion, because benefits associated with increases in waterfowl populations, improvements in coastal and estuarine recreation areas, increased likelihood of survival of endangered species, increases in marine fisheries populations, and decreases in the cost that airborne soil imposes on industries, scenic views, and others have not been included (Claassen, Hansen, et al., January 2001).
3. Flexibility in the implementation of farm bill programs is necessary, for there are differences between regions, states, counties and municipalities in how programs are delivered. By providing flexibility, we can reduce the costs incurred by farmers to participate or comply with an agri-environmental program. The geophysical and biological environment, as well as producer management skills, production practices, preferences, and attitudes regarding natural resource performance, vary widely among agricultural producers, even within small geographic areas. While a specific conservation practice may fit well into one farming operation, boosting fish and wildlife benefits on one farm, the same practice may not fit well on another farm. Thus, a one size fits all program often meets resistance. If our goal is to maximize conservation compliance, we need to allow those at the local level to have the flexibility to make adjustments where needed.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Specifically we recommend:
A. Raising the cap on CRP to 63.9 million acres (with a minimum of 45 million acres). A sensible approach to reduce excess production capacity through long-term idling of surplus cropland exists in this very popular program. The demand by landowners is tremendous. The program has enhanced more wildlife populations than any action ever taken in the United States. CRP has helped raise commodity prices, too. The value of the CRP's improvements to wildlife viewing and to pheasant hunting has been estimated at $704 million/year (Claassen et al., 2001). Specific improvements to CRP include state flexibility in addressing rental rates and seed mixtures, along with natural regeneration on riparian buffers in marginal pastures.
B. Increasing the annual enrollment cap of WRP to 250,000 acres. With a 5:1 ratio of applications to approved projects, the demand exists. Examples include 268 landowners in Iowa who are currently waiting to enroll. Projects should be designed more carefully to help achieve wildlife restoration goals.
C. Providing $100 million annually for WHIP. WHIP projects have reached non-traditional farm bill programs where they have been able to address many endangered species scenarios while keeping regulations to a minimum. This program was embraced by landowners and formed many partnerships between USDA (NRCS) and non-Federal organizations, resulting in tremendous leveraging of non-Federal dollars.
D. Increasing funding to $200 million annually for the Forest Legacy Program. The Forest Legacy Program has a proven track record of protecting productive forestlands from development and fragmentation. Whether through conservation easements or fee purchase, Legacy focuses on state assessments of need to set program priorities. Public benefits amass from both environmental and economic values.
E. Providing $200 million for the Farmland Protection Program. Require conservation easements under the program to consider wildlife habitat, in addition to soil and water conservation.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
F. Increasing funding to provide at least $300 million per year for EQIP. Expand funding to elevate and integrate wildlife habitat needs into the program legislation.
G. Providing $50 million per year for Forest Stewardship to increase planning Assistance to Private Forest Land Owners. Non-industrial private forestland owners provide great benefits to wildlife through their forest management. Forest Stewardship plans ensure that non-commodity forest resources such as soil, water, fish and wildlife, recreation and aesthetics are considered and balanced with commodity outputs.
H. Creating one non-industrial private landowner cost-share assistance program by combining the current Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) with the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) and fund at $100 million. A financial incentives program is needed to encourage private forest land owners to adopt management practices that respond to national needs for healthy sustainable forests.
Suggested new program
Establish a native grassland/rangeland easement program. Use WRP as a template for this program. The objective would be to protect environmentally sensitive native grass/range from conversion, and the easement program should be funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Conclusion
It is obvious that landowners support conservation incentive programs to an extent that the demand exceeds supply. Funding these programs will improve our nation's resources and help farmers and ranchers manage their land. In effect, farm bill conservation programs are a win-win scenario and benefit society as a whole.
Attention to wildlife habitats such as native prairie rangeland, wetlands and early successional forests is needed. These landscapes are worth saving and enhancing. Innovative ways of providing technical assistance via state fish and wildlife agencies and conservation non-governmental organizations is a viable method to address landowner needs. These are lessons learned over the past 15 years.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We stand ready to work with the Subcommittee to enhance conservation programs during the 2002 farm bill reauthorization process. Furthermore, we look forward to the opportunity to participate in the continuing dialogue during the months leading to passage of the next farm bill.
Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
Defenders of Wildlife welcomes the opportunity to provide testimony to the House Agricultural Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research on resource conservation programs for the next farm bill. Defenders is a strong proponent of natural resource conservation on private agricultural lands and supports the goals of current programs. Primarily since 1980, the various soil, water, and wildlife habitat conservation programs implemented through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have made substantial contributions to reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, and benefitting wildlife populations. For example, as of the year 2000, nearly 935,000 acres had been enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), most of it in 30 year or permanent easements. More than 80,000 contracts have been implemented through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), providing resource conservation measures on more than 34 million acres. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and conservation compliance have made significant contributions to reducing soil erosion by nearly 40 percent between 1982 and 1997, from about 3.08 to 1.89 billion tons/year. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) has funded about 8,400 projects on more than 1.4 million acres, including projects that have targeted imperiled species and their habitats such as the Atlantic Salmon and the Karner Blue Butterfly. Under the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, the conservation of wildlife habitat was designated as a coequal resource objective with soil conservation and water quality. All of these accomplishments are significant and are to be commended.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Funding levels for USDA resource conservation programs have generally increased over the years and now most conservation programs have guaranteed, mandatory funding. The USDA services responsible for implementing resource conservation programs benefit from a pool of very dedicated and capable people who provide much needed on-the-ground technical assistance and administrative support.
Despite the many accomplishments of past conservation efforts, there are important programmatic and implementation questions that need to be addressed in the conservation title of the next farm bill. The purpose of our testimony is to raise issues and provide recommendations that will build upon the past successes of USDA resource conservation programs, and to strengthen their positive impacts on natural resource stewardship in the future. The specific topics addressed below include issues and recommendations for conservation program implementation, the scope of current programs aimed at wildlife habitat, and the proposed Conservation Security Agreement.
1. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO CONSERVATION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
Major Issues
There are eight major USDA natural resource conservation programs that entail payments to agricultural producers for environmental purposes. These eight programs are fragmented not only by their environmental and ecological purpose, but also by the administrative agency responsible for their implementation. Fragmentation has contributed to problems associated with the lack of producer flexibility, and program complexity and costs.
There are two dimensions to the lack of producer flexibility: the choice of conservation management practices and incentive mechanisms. Resource conservation management practices are first developed at the national level and then state and local technical committees can then adapt these practices to local conditions. However, the practice itself remains unchanged, and may still be inappropriate for state and/or local environmental, ecological, and economic conditions. There can be low program participation rates where practices are ill-suited, resulting in lower technical effectiveness and higher program implementation costs. Furthermore, there is no timely process for altering conservation management practices to adjust to dynamic technical and economic constraints.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most USDA resource conservation programs are designed with one type of economic incentive mechanism to attract producers. These incentive mechanisms are not substitutable across conservation programs or ecosystems. The lack of flexibility to apply different incentive structures across resource protection programs has discouraged participation amongst some producers whose physical or economic circumstances to do not match the incentives offered.
From the producer's perspective, the numerous, and sometimes redundant, resource conservation programs are complex and difficult to understand because each has multiple information, eligibility, and technical assistance requirements. This complexity is reinforced by the fact that some programs are accessible to producers only if they have a cropping history for specific commodities. Basing eligibility for incentive programs on the past or present production of a limited number of crops defeats the purpose of universal participation.
The fragmentation and complexity of conservation programs have contributed to increased administrative and implementation costs. For producers, the transactions costs of gathering information about programs and meeting eligibility criteria have become increasingly burdensome. Administrative costs associated with supporting several types of conservation efforts are higher compared to a more streamlined approach that could consolidate Federal conservation programs into one overall resource conservation agency.
Funding levels for resource conservation technical assistance and research have remained practically unchanged over the last few years, despite a USDA mandate to implement more conservation programs over a broader geographical area. In real terms, Federal funding for technical assistance to deliver conservation programs, and for the research and development of new conservation technologies, has actually declined over the last ten years. This situation has resulted in the inability of reduced staffs to provide effective and efficient service to the growing numbers of producers waiting to participate in conservation programs. Furthermore, applied research is lagging behind increased regulatory requirements that mandate producers to improve the environmental and ecological performance of their operations.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recommendations
Consolidation of all existing resource conservation programs under one administrative authority would help decrease the complexity and costs of the current system, and would likely increase producer participation. Although there will continue to be a need for technical and administrative assistance in planning and implementing conservation programs, both functions could be profitably united under one overall USDA resource protection and conservation program. This streamlined system would facilitate producer information acquisition for conservation programs and selection of incentives, and reduce producer transactions costs.
Federal Government assistance to protect and conserve natural resources on agricultural lands could be provided in the form of grants to states (using Federal guidelines). States would decide how to allocate grants amongst priority resource conservation areas, including the development of a comprehensive resource conservation strategy.
With respect to conservation management practices, agricultural producers should have the flexibility to design, test, and implement (with the assistance of qualified government technical agencies, third party nonprofit groups, and/or certified private consultants) new agro-environmental technologies and management practices that are appropriate to local environmental and economic conditions. Producers should be allowed to modify existing management practices in order to meet resource conservation goals. Increased flexibility in the application and administration of economic incentives can be achieved by allowing project regions or individual producers to apply for the incentive measure that best fits their physical and economic situation.
The technical and administrative capacity of Federal conservation agencies to plan, administer and effectively monitor natural resource protection and conservation projects need to be increased. Conservation-related public institutions such as the NRCS and Cooperative Extension Services require additional funding to design, market and implement conservation programs and new agro-environmental conservation management practices. The Land Grant Universities and the USDA Agricultural Research Service also require increased financial support for research and development of production practices that, to the extent possible, simultaneously meet profit and production goals and reduce adverse environmental impacts on water, air, wildlife habitat and/or biodiversity. Increased financial resources must also be made available to support natural resource conservation education.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additional changes to promote more effective and efficient resource conservation programs on agricultural lands include the following:
A. There needs to be more transparency and private (profit and nonprofit) sector participation in two areas. First, there needs to be a more open process in deciding which best management practices are eligible for cost-sharing. The present system is too top-down and does not take into consideration the expertise of field staff or producers. Second, the competitive process for selecting project applications must be more open to the public, with clear decision criteria for which projects get funded.
B. The Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) method used for evaluating which projects are funded by Federal conservation programs needs to be revised. The EBI is a measure of economic or financial efficiency in the sense of obtaining the most environmental benefit for least cost. Producers with the highest EBI's get projects funded. However, the benefit measure is essentially subjective in the sense that it is based on the practice implemented and not an actual environmental outcome. Furthermore, there are equity concerns in that some large-scale agricultural producers can submit bids with very low cost estimates (thereby increasing their EBI ratio) because they will spread management costs over a larger number of acres and/or practices. Medium and small-scale producers whose unit costs are higher are put at a disadvantage. A new method of ranking projects should be developed that is based on actual or expected environmental and economic benefits.
C. As agricultural production intensifies, with resulting increased agro-environmental problems, it will be important for USDA resource conservation staff to be increased in the areas of water quality and biological sciences.
D. Conservation compliance, sod buster, and swamp buster requirements should be reinstated and vigorously enforced. ''Slippage'' (new lands with sensitive resource problems being brought into production as a result of enrolling production lands in USDA conservation programs) occurs at an alarming rate. Tax payers should not be subsidizing this practice.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
E. Conservation programs should encourage innovation in meeting national environmental goals by creating program flexibility to build in new practices proposed by research institutions and the private sector. There should be increased use of competitive bidding techniques or other innovative administration of the programs.
F. Conservation program delivery to agricultural producers needs to be improved. An integrated application/evaluation process for all programs should be created and implemented to make delivery simpler.
G. Environmental performance goals need to be established for each conservation program. A monitoring and evaluation process needs to be established to determine whether conservation programs are physically effective and whether incentive mechanisms are adequate.
2. Issues and Recommendations Related to Specific Conservation Programs
From a conservation perspective, all existing resource conservation programs are important. Although our particular interest is in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the continuum of conservation programs addresses the diversity of existing resource concerns throughout the country. Specific programs are much more important in some regions than others. The basket of current programs is complementary and need to work together to address regional and local differences in environmental priorities, land values and public demands.
The demand for conservation programs by landowners far exceeds available funding and staffing. Current use of programs only represents a portion of the real demand. Inadequate funding levels have suppressed demand by landowners because they are not willing to reapply year after year when only a small percentage of the necessary funds are committed by Congress. If delivery and funding were more adequate, many more producers would apply.
General Recommendations
A diverse coalition of farm, conservation, environmental, church and hunting and fishing groups support increased agricultural spending for voluntary, incentive- based conservation programs in the next farm bill. In addition to an increased conservation budget, the first principle of the next farm bill should be to maintain and protect the environmental gains made thus far. At a time of crop surpluses, it would be counterproductive for Federal programs to inadvertently create incentives for environmental damage.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increased funding for all conservation programs would help provide a stable source of income to farmers. Many producers have participated in different types of conservation programs in order to make their operations more economically viable. Furthermore, an array of conservation programs can provide financial and technical assistance to assist producers to contribute environmental benefits. The next farm bill is a good opportunity to help producers meet increasing environmental expectations and to comply with existing regulatory mandates for threatened and endangered species, water quality, and air quality.
There should be an increased effort to leverage state, local and private funding by encouraging partnerships with all levels of government and private enterprises. Models such as CREP, WHIP, FPP are examples of effective leveraging.
In general, Defenders' believes that there is a need to at least triple the current funding levels of conservation programs to meet the overwhelming existing and anticipated demand. We recommend an annual allocation of $10 billion to resource conservation programs, including technical assistance, agricultural research and grants. A specific breakdown would be as follows: CRP: $1.6B, CSA: $2.5B, WRP: $157M, WHIP: $200M, Sustainable Agriculture Research: $15M, Pilot Carbon Sequestration Projects, $200M, CTA: $600M.
Specific Recommendations Regarding the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Defenders of Wildlife particularly advocates expansion of the WHIP program to protect and restore natural habitats and to promote conservation on landscapes in agricultural production. The recommendations presented here are based on three strategies. The first conservation strategy is to permanently protect remaining intact native habitats under private agricultural ownership in the form of an easement and/or management agreement. The second strategy is to restore and then protect native habitats that have been significantly altered by past land uses. The third strategy is to remedy the adverse impacts on wildlife and their native habitat from past or current agricultural production practices, and to encourage a more sustainable use of wildlife, water, and soil resources on agricultural lands that remain in production. These three types of interventions are complementary and require that a tool box or menu of conservation management practices and economic incentives be available to producers.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
State Habitat Conservation Strategies
Targeting essential habitats for protection and restoration efforts requires that these habitats first be identified. A state habitat conservation strategy can be implemented to identify essential native habitats that should be permanently protected and/or restored. Such planning efforts have already been completed in Florida and Oregon. Federal funding for additional state-based habitat plans is authorized through Title VIII of the 2001 Interior Appropriations Act and Title IX of the 2001 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act. To date, about 20 states have expressed interest in developing such plans. USDA's experience with conservation programs indicates that there are potentially significant cost savings in designing programs to protect or enhance natural resources on agricultural lands if those programs target lands with the highest potential. The ability to target valuable habitat areas for protection requires that conservation programs be flexible enough to account for different species, habitats, and activities in different parts of the country.
To a limited degree, the WHIP program has already initiated a state habitat planning process. At the beginning of the authorization of the WHIP program, each state prepared a summary of general wildlife habitat conditions and set priority areas for funding. In some states, threatened and endangered species and their habitats were prioritized for program assistance
Permanent Protection and Restoration of Natural Habitats
Natural habitat protection is defined as leaving key lands in their current natural or near-natural condition where these support occurrences of at-risk elements of biodiversity (Federal threatened and endangered species, and critically imperiled, imperiled, and vulnerable species and natural community types as identified by The Nature Conservancy and the network of state Natural Heritage Programs). This approach would involve comprehensive protection and/or restoration of plant communities as well as occurrence of at risk species, not just individual species, and could be implemented by expanding the scope of the current WHIP program.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To implement this targeted approach, agricultural landowners and operators could adopt a farm or ranch-level habitat protection and/or restoration plan that is consistent with a statewide habitat conservation strategy. Landowners would have the opportunity to design, test, and implement appropriate management practices and technologies to fit their specific physical environment. The farm-level plan would specify desired environmental and ecological outcomes and include a monitoring program to determine whether those outcomes had been achieved.
Permanent protection and restoration of essential native habitats would be incentive-driven, thereby increasing the likelihood that biodiversity and species of concern would become an asset to the agricultural land owner and producer. All producers who own property that has been designated as important native habitat for either protection and/or restoration by a state wildlife habitat conservation plan would be eligible to participate in the program and receive funding. Two major types of economic incentives to permanently protect and/or restore wildlife habitat, include (1) measures that encourage long term land protection (rentals, easements), and (2) resource conservation agreements to maintain the biological integrity of protected and restored lands. Under contractual resource conservation agreements, agricultural land owners would receive assistance for restoring and maintaining the ecological integrity of protected areas.
Incentives for a protection and/or restoration program would be similar to what is now being implemented under the WRP, whereby participants could opt for maintaining a permanent habitat conservation easement and contract to furnish habitat restoration and maintenance activities. Conservation easement payments for those lands supporting occurrences of at-risk elements of biodiversity, as identified in a state habitat conservation strategy, would be set in accord with local land easement values or rental rates for unimproved agricultural or forest land. Assistance under a resource conservation agreement for restoration and maintenance practices would be based on a cost-share schedule. To implement the above concepts, Defenders' advocates pilot programs in Oregon and Florida, two states which have completed their habitat conservation planning process.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to concentrating on lands with essential native wildlife habitat, targeting criteria could include prioritizing lands where (1) conservation investments result in multiple benefits [e.g., simultaneous improvements in native wildlife habitat, water quality, flood plain functions, non-impact recreation, and decreased soil erosion, etc.]; (2) lands with the highest marginal benefit per investment in terms of resource protection; and (3) for water quality conservation efforts, the number of contiguous land owners submitting joint applications for resource protection, conservation, or restoration [coordination of individual projects is especially important for improved water quality].
Habitat Conservation on Agricultural Lands in Production
Another dimension of a comprehensive strategy is to promote native habitat restoration and conservation on agricultural lands that remain in production. Habitat conservation in these areas is currently being implemented through WHIP, and to some extent, EQIP. Conserving and improving wildlife habitat is also an authorized activity under the proposed Conservation Security Act. There is some evidence of the beneficial, but limited, impact of WHIP projects on these habitats. In 1999, 10 percent of the total area enrolled in the WHIP (about 72,000 acres) was aimed at the habitats of species listed as threatened and endangered.
Efforts directed toward improving habitat on lands in agricultural production are justified because not all agricultural landowners will want to permanently protect habitats by selling land, placing land in conservation easements, or temporarily retiring land through rental agreements for ecological benefit (e.g., CRP). Furthermore, some agricultural land use activities are compatible with the protection and conservation of native wildlife habitat.
Policies and programs to make agricultural production more compatible with native wildlife habitat conservation need to be flexible to take advantage of the wide array of physical, environmental, and managerial factors that affect the impacts of production practices on species and habitats. Recognizing the complexities that nature can impose on wildlife protection efforts, biologists have developed some general recommendations to protect and enhance wildlife populations and habitats on working agricultural lands. These recommendations include: (1) allowing conservation programs the flexibility to address local and regional wildlife habitat priorities; (2) reducing farm chemical use; (3) promoting larger contiguous tracts of habitat over smaller isolated tracts; (4) reducing field disturbances; and (5) encouraging conservation tillage. Habitat and species management activities on working agricultural landscapes could also include control of exotic species, and the return of ecosystem processes, such as fire, that are essential to maintaining or restoring occurrences of at-risk species.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Comments Related to the Proposed Conservation Security Act
The Conservation Security Act (CSA) is intended to coexist with and complement existing conservation and commodity programs, although producers would have the option of consolidating conservation efforts under EQIP and WHIP into a Conservation Security Plan. The CSA has the potential fill the geographical gaps in conservation effort created by current program requirements. Also, the CSA would reward producers who have voluntarily implemented a minimum level of resource stewardship who are now ineligible for existing programs. The CSA is intended as a national conservation program that will complement existing set-aside programs and encourage increased conservation on lands in agricultural production in all regions of the country. We recommend that the Subcommittee seriously consider the CSA as a complimentary program to existing resource conservation efforts.
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(CONSERVATION PROGRAMS)
SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Weatherford, OK.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at Southwestern Oklahoma State University, Weatherford, OK, Hon. Frank D. Lucas, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Present: Representatives Moran and Osborne.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit Rural Development and Research to review conservation programs will come to order.
I want to welcome my colleagues on the subcommittee to the third of three hearings to discuss conservation issues. As always, it is a pleasure to be home in the sixth district of Oklahoma, particularly in Weatherford, and I would like to thank my vice chairman from Kansas, Mr. Moran, for attending, and my colleague, Mr. Osborne, from Nebraska for participating in this field hearing. They have been very dedicated members in their attendance to all of these committee meetings, both on the subcommittee and the full committee.
Part of what we have set about to do in this series of hearings is to prepare the background for the writing of our section of the next farm bill. As many of you know, the 1996 farm bill is about to expire, and it is time to begin the process of writing a new farm bill.
The Federal Government spends nearly $3 billion a year on conservation programs that affect agriculture and the general public, and we have seen many proposals so far in the hearings that we have conducted now, the previous two, about where we should go with these commodity programs. We have heard comments of anywhere from an additional $5 billion or more dollars to be spent on agriculture.
The reason we are here is to hear from producers and representative producers concerning the programs as they now exist—basically, to look at what works, what does not work, what can we do better, and how can we do it better. And I would remind all of my panelists, friends, and neighbors out there in the audience that we have approximately $17 billion to spend this time in this coming farm bill annually on commodity programs, conservation programs, research, rural development, and credit title law. And there are far more needs out there than that $17 billion will address.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So that is why it is so important that we have these hearings, that we lay the groundwork to put the next farm bill together, and to do the things that—continue to do the things that work and perhaps address better ways of doing the things that do not work.
And with that, I would turn to my vice chairman, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to the Oklahomans and others who are gathered here. I am anxious to hear their testimony, hear what is said, so that we can make those decisions and make good policy, determine our priorities in Washington, DC, in regard to conservation.
I am pleased to be in Oklahoma. The district I represent is not unlike Mr. Lucas' or Mr. Osborne's. It is the western three-fourths of the State of Kansas. I live in Hays, the last place that Custer left before he went north not to return. And it was pleasing to pull into town. Weatherford reminds me of being home in Hays. We are the home of Fort Hays State University, and the first street sign I happened to notice was called Kansas Avenue. So I am glad to be where at least those of us who Mr. Lucas refers to as northerners are still slightly welcome.
Mr. Lucas is a good colleague and friend of mine. He is well regarded in agriculture in my district, and he is one that I look to for advice and suggestions as a member of Congress trying to figure out what we can do to keep farmers and ranchers alive and well.
And it is also great to be here with Mr. Osborne. Mr. Osborne is a legend, almost to the degree that he is in Nebraska and Kansas, in slightly different attitude but totally held in high regard.
And it is great to have him join us in Congress this year, and it is great to have him as a colleague and participate in today's hearing. And I thank Mr. Lucas for the opportunity to be here and to listen to all of you.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. I am pleased to note, Mr. Moran, that my late grandfather used to refer to Yankees as being anybody who lived north of the Oklahoma State line, had never had the opportunity to meet real Yankees that we work with in the Northeast, so it is a pleasure to have you from Kansas.
And now to turn to one of the newest members on the Agriculture Committee, and one of the folks who I think will make a great mark on this subcommittee as well as he has made a great mark everywhere in his career, Mr. Osborne.
OPENIGN STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. It is nice to see all of you here today, and it is a little more relaxed visit to Oklahoma than I usually have. [Laughter.]
I am glad we got to stay and work. Usually when I came down to Oklahoma everything worked awfully well as far as Oklahoma was concerned. But anyway, my remarks are going to be very brief.
I feel that one of the reasons I did this at this particular stage of my life was I represent an area that is much like this geographical region. It is about 85 percent of Nebraska. And, as you know, agriculture is very challenged, and it is very troubled. We are losing young people rapidly in these communities. We are losing farmers, and it is not very profitable.
And so I felt I had one more push left, and I thought I would try to spend it in some area where I might make a difference. And I thought that the third district of Nebraska and in farm country was maybe where I could get the most return for my time, I hope.
So anyway that is why I am here, and that is why I came down here today. I think the conservation title is going to be critical as far as people and livestock, EQIP. Those types of programs are going to be mostly what they are going to get out of the program. So, anyway, it is a pleasure for me to be here today. I have enjoyed working with Mr. Lucas, Mr. Moran, and we will look forward to hearing your testimony today. Thank you.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. And by way of a little background for those of you who may never have had a chance to come to a congressional hearing, you will notice on the front table we have a little machine with a red and an amber and a green light. By the rules that we operate under in the House Agriculture Committee, each of the witnesses will have 5 minutes to offer their testimony, a summation.
They will have longer documents that they have submitted to the record. After we have heard from each member of this panel, then the subcommittee will have an opportunity to question any or all of the members, potentially more than one round, depending on how the topic matter flows. Then we will have a second panel and conclude it at that point.
With that, let us turn to our panel. The first panelist who will speak in just a moment is Mr. Ray Wulf, president of the Oklahoma Farmers Union from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, speaking I believe on behalf of the National Farmers Union as well.
We have Steve Kouplen, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau from Oklahoma City; Scott Dewald, executive director of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association from Oklahoma City; Mr. Eddie Bowman, president of the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association from Enid; and one of my ever great favorites, Billy Wilson, past chairman and a member of the steering committee of the National Watershed Coalition from Kinta, Oklahoma.
And with that, Mr. Wulf, you may begin when you are ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF RAY WULF, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA FARMERS UNION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Mr. WULF. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Oklahoma Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union, representing the interests of over 300,000 farm and ranch families across America, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to share our observations and recommendations about the current and future conservation programs.
First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we recognize the leadership that you have demonstrated to authorize and fund watershed rehabilitation. We support and applaud your efforts and encourage you to continue the crusade to ensure that all conservation cost-share investments be considered for rehabilitation efforts where necessary.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current conservation programs authorized under the 1996 farm bill have, for the most part, been sound programs.
They have served to conserve our soil resources, enhance wildlife, and improve the quality of air and water through participation incentives and technical assistance.
However, it is important that the level of funding be adequate to ensure the long-term success of these initiatives, and that adequate funding be available, so that agriculture producers desiring to implement conservation practices have the funding to do so.
We support the Conservation Reserve Program. From Oklahoma's perspective, the CRP is a good, long-term conservation investment program that should address soil type and topography for primary selection, wildlife habitat as secondary.
We support raising the cap on total enrollment to at least 40 million acres, with new enrollment targeted towards riparian areas. We support ensuring compensation rights that are comparable to local rental rates plus a provision for management incentives. Here in Oklahoma we support reenrolling existing CRP acreage, which is a previously accepted grass stand.
The National Farmers Union organization expresses continued support for the wetlands reserve, farmland protection, and wildlife habitat incentive programs. Additionally, we support the EQIP program, which has been successful in providing financial, technical, and educational assistance.
However, its success has been limited due to the inadequate funding levels and force singularly focused on broad-based watershed priorities. This has resulted in the rejection of many worthwhile projects that would have received cost share assistance under the old ACP and Great Plains programs, the predecessors to the EQIP.
We recommend at least 50 percent of the State funding should be directed to statewide concerns allowing more local discretion for targeting priorities.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we recently have wrestled with the designation of the Arkansas River Shiner. Now that the Federal Government has made its determination, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proceeding forward to determine a recovery plan for the species along a river that stretches three-quarters of the way across the State, impacting private landowners on each side of the river.
We strongly oppose any action taken by Fish and Wildlife to utilize funds appropriated for agriculture to carry out recovery programs. Such funding should be provided by the agency requiring such actions and not through technical assistance cost share programs where funds are already limited. We do fully support appropriate funding to compensate producers in taking of their land.
The Conservation Technical Assistance Program is also beneficial to farmers and ranchers. They receive cost share assistance for implementing conservation systems, but needs the resources to assist those producers who want to adapt sound conservation practices but who are not seeking cost share assistance.
Please also know of our support for the conservation of private grazing land. This initiative is designed to provide technical, educational-related assistance to landowners. We strongly support NRCS to remain as a separate entity, employing its own personnel. The technical expertise of the NRCS has provided service and new technologies to producers with uncompromised technical assistance.
In addition to the suggested improvements in the existing conservation and technical assistance programs, we also urge the consideration of several new incentives. The Conservation Security Act, a bipartisan congressional proposal, provides voluntary incentive payments to producers for the application of appropriate conservation measures on land that is currently and likely to remain in production.
We support this framework for conservation payments as a way to reward those who have undertaken the establishment of conservation practices in the past, and those who implement future activities.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are three tiers of practices. Tier I, practices which include nutrient management, pest management, and cover cropping. Tier II, practices or system practices, such as rotational grazing, buffers, and wetlands restoration. And tier III is a whole farm plan. The annual payment cap is $20,000, $35,000 and $50,000, respectively.
Soil Rehabilitation Program, another item we support, the implementation of an immediate term soil rehabilitation program of three to five years enrollment. That would provide both technical and economic assistance to family farmers to restore the historical productivity level and capacity of the land.
Also, Carbon Sequestration Program is another item we support appropriate incentives and technical assistance to encourage the implementation of crop and livestock production activities to establish and compensate producers for on-farm carbon sequestration.
Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. I will be pleased to respond to any questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Wulf.
Mr. Kouplen.
STATEMENT OF STEVE KOUPLEN, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA FARM BUREAU
Mr. KOUPLEN. Mr. Chairman, fellow committee members, my name is Steve Kouplen. I am a rancher from Beggs in Okmulgee County. I am honored to speak to you today.
I serve as president of the largest agricultural organization in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. We have more than 127,000 member families.
Our affiliated organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, has already made extensive comments on this issue. So I will take this opportunity to put an Oklahoma spin on what we would like to see in the conservation title of the next farm bill.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oklahoma has a fervent history of support for conservation ever since the desperate times of the Dust Bowl. Today's farmers and ranchers believe strongly in the conservation of our soil and water because agriculture relies on the sustainability of these resources. Conservation of these basic resources benefit all citizens by providing cleaner air and water, even though the public at large is probably not aware of these benefits.
We would like to see the next conservation title build upon the foundation of the current one. Following are our specific suggestions.
Regarding the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, or EQIP, we think the EQIP program should be retained but reformed. The first reform we suggest is to put more money into it. Second, we are not supportive of the existing priority area concept. We feel more producers could be assisted with smaller, yet beneficial projects, if the money was spread around more. And, third, technical assistance needs to be expanded in this and other programs.
Regarding the expansion of State and Federal regulations on agriculture producers, we think there should be a program to provide financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to help them implement unfunded State and Federal regulatory mandates.
These mandates farmers and ranchers are facing include such things as requiring clean air and water permits for smaller animal feeding operations, requiring producers to meet a total maximum daily load water quality goal in their watershed, and using the Clean Air Act to require control of dust and odor in agricultural operations. EQIP could serve as the vehicle to provide this type of assistance to producers.
Regarding the environmental incentive payments, we support a voluntary environmental program that provides producers with additional options for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion, and wildlife habitat. Oklahoma is an ardent supporter of continuing the grasslands conservative initiative. More than 23.5 million acres of land in Oklahoma is used for grazing. This is a tremendous renewable resource.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, we continue to support this program. We support a limited increase in the amount of acreage eligible to be enrolled in CRP with new acreage targeted toward buffer strips, filter strips, wetlands, and grass waterways.
I would like to leave you with these thoughts. Keeping agriculture producers on the land by assisting them with conservation programs and technical assistance demonstrates a laudable commitment by this Nation to the long-term sustainability of domestic production agriculture. Voluntary conservation programs have a history of success.
I urge you to keep these programs voluntary and to maintain the confidentiality of the farmers and ranchers who participate in them. Voluntary conservation programs and the technical assistance provided by the NRCS are the best buffers against costly and unnecessary regulation of production agriculture. I urge you to continue these types of programs which have a broad benefit for all citizens.
I would also like to comment and say that the work that your committee will do probably will have the most impact on farmers and ranchers in the future for two or three main reasons. One, because of the WTO and the implications of payments we receive, payments that will come from the conservation area will fall into the green box, which could be unlimited.
And as you know, under the conditions that farmers and ranchers are facing today, your income payments are necessary to keep them on the farms and ranches. Also, because of the influence or the regulations and mandates that we are going to see come down the line, we are going to need assistance in meeting those mandates for clean air and water, and we know that your committee has the ability to see that those will be done to keep that one additional straw off the camel's back and keep farmers and ranchers out there on the land.
I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Dewald.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF SCOTT DEWALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. DEWALD. Chairman Lucas, and members, thank you for holding this public hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit Rural Development and Research in Oklahoma.
Chairman Lucas, we welcome you back home, and we thank you for your ongoing commitment to being home as much as possible and for your dedication to your constituents in Oklahoma, particularly as it regards the farm bill and conservation issues, including such things as research and rehabilitation of flood control structures.
Members, we thank you for participating in this hearing. Your presence here is indicative of your commitment to shaping public policy, which is in the best interest of rural America.
I am Scott Dewald, executive vice-president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association. And we are very grateful for this opportunity to provide you with our views on the conservation provisions of the 2002 farm bill. This bill must include a strong, effective, and well-funded conservation title.
Livestock production is important to the management of our Nation's agricultural lands. Grassland, pasture, and range was the single-largest land use in the country, and livestock operators manage more than 300 million acres of cropland.
These statistics provide ample justification for a major Federal investment in conserving the lands. The investments made by USDA have consistently declined since the passage of the 1985 Food Security Act. The 2002 farm bill must make a major new commitment to providing livestock producers with conservation cost share and incentive payment assistance in the context of voluntary incentive-based programs.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Livestock producers continue to face costly environmental regulations as a result of State and Federal law designed to protect water quality, the Federal regulations under the Clean Water Act, including total maximum daily loads in the proposed new concentrated animal feeding operations, and animal feeding operation permit requirements.
Federal regulators are also exploring the possibility of expanding Federal regulation of agriculture under the Clean Air Act. The 2002 farm bill should reverse the trend that started with the 1985 Food Security Act and restore technical assistance to at least pre–1985 levels. The need for this technical assistance will do nothing but escalate.
Current water quality expectations for our industry are projected by our industry to cost livestock producers with more than 50 animal units at least $12.2 billion over the course of the next 10 years. Explicit provisions must be enacted that structure and support the joint effort of Federal and non-Federal technical assistance providers that will be needed to support this work. A voucher system could be developed to support the non-Federal technical assistance provider roles as needed.
There is a great deal, obviously, to be accomplished over the course of the next 10 years, and it is going to be an expensive effort. But we believe we can start addressing these issues through substantial amendments to the existing EQIP program, or perhaps even an entirely new program.
If carried out through EQIP, it must be amended to focus exclusively on soil, water, and air quality issues. If we focus on these issues, we will do a much better job of conserving our resources and still obtain benefits for wildlife.
The current wildlife objectives supported by EQIP should be moved to the existing Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, making WHIP the wildlife program for working ag lands. We believe it is counterproductive to many conservation efforts to predicate program decisions on anything less than our original objective of conserving soil and water.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Management systems must also be funded. This could be done in EQIP or through some other incentive payments program. An incentive payment program will work only if the payments are tied to real costs according to conservation plans that are accountable and where producers will still have ownership of those practices.
And the Conservation Reserve Program should be amended. There should be flexibility in the CRP program to enable producers to enroll whole fields, partial fields, and buffer strips. This added flexibility will allow us to utilize site-specific information so that producers in the programs can focus resources where they are needed most.
The CRP should include provisions to manage CRP lands for long-term sustainability. Currently producers are prohibited from managing for healthy grass stands. Management tools include prescribed burning, haying, and even grazing should be available to landowners for the sustainability of CRP lands. Payment adjustments may be necessary to ensure that parity among producers is achieved.
Lastly, as it regards CRP and other programs, we feel it counterproductive to displace the use of non-natives with natives, which in many cases results in a loss of productivity. In many cases, these decisions detract from our original goal of conserving soil and water. These decisions must be left up to the producer, and he or she, with adequate informed technical assistance, can then base their decisions on agronomy and soil health.
The farm bill should fully fund the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative and its voluntary technical assistance program for grazing lands. Conservation programs, as you well know, are a two-way street. Programs have no merit if landowners are not willing to implement them.
The disincentives to participate are starting to outweigh the incentives.
Having spent the past 18 months dealing with the proposed listing of critical habitat for the Arkansas River Shiner, we have become quite familiar with the term ''Federal nexus.'' As we understand it, the provisions which establish a Federal nexus and what authority that grants non-agricultural agencies are statutory, and they are found in the Endangered Species Act.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would be grateful if this committee would forward our concerns regarding this issue to the House Resources Committee, which we understand has jurisdiction over the ESA. Producers are reluctant to enter into agreements when they are uncertain of the liability or unforseen responsibilities they may incur, and the confidentiality, or, more importantly, the lack thereof, of any information that they may provide.
We also want to thank this committee for its ongoing efforts in research. And with that, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Bowman.
STATEMENT OF EDDIE BOWMAN, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA WHEAT GROWERS
Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Chairman, and committee members, it is a privilege for me, as president of the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, to discuss our views on conservation with you this morning.
My name is Eddie Bowman, and I have the pleasure of producing wheat and beef cattle in north central Oklahoma near Billings. Some of the most fertile and productive soil in the southern Great Plains is in this area of our great State, and, unfortunately, some of the most conservationally sensitive also. Few places exhibit the obvious benefits and needed continuation of sound and effective voluntary conservation programs even more.
Wheat and grain producers in Oklahoma have made tremendous strides, often at personal cost, to improve not only the environmental impact of our blessed Earth, but its productivity and longevity through conservation in the past 20 years. The Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association and its members are fully committed to the improvement of our Nation's rich land and environment through the continuation of objective, equitable, voluntary, incentive-based flexible conservation programs that have allowed agriculture to make these impressive gains.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that said, OWGA realized the importance of the conservation title in the forthcoming farm bill, but we remain completely committed to seeing the goals and financial objective of the commodity title realized as a first and foremost priority.
OWGA views conservation as a necessary complement to ensure that we maintain and improve the productivity of the land, the health of the environment, and the quality of our Nation's food supply. Government should continue to provide incentive-based assistance to conservation but not seek to replace food production as the primary objective of our Nation's agricultural lands.
OWGA supports the locally led conservation efforts that maximize environmental benefit through targeted management of our land resources. We believe the current CRP enrollment cap of 36.4 million acres nationally is adequate and should not be raised. We recommend that the Environmental Benefits Index criteria have a greater emphasis on wind and water erosion, with the intention of refocusing CRP to use on our marginal soils and most fragile lands.
We recognize the tremendous positive impact that the CRP program has made in Oklahoma and support its broad, whole farm enrollment features, but only in the most sensitive scenarios where the revised EBI would warrant broad program enrollment. Whole farm continuous enrollment should only be used to assist producers with addressing site-specific problems that cannot be addressed in a cost-effective manner on a limited acreage basis.
In similar fashion, we see the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, or a similar program as a means to address site-specific conservation needs. We also believe that the EQIP program should be more equitable and should be amended to allow commodity producers to better utilize the program.
Either the priority area process should be revised, or some of the focus should shift from places to practices, allowing the program to be flexible to specific concerns and specific area. A program similar to that of the previous Great Plains Conservation Program could work wonderfully in cooperation or conjunction with more locally focused and guided programs that will allow property owners to address such situations as total maximum daily load allocations in certain areas through best management practices.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to the management of wetlands, OWGA believes that, as with the CRP programs, acreage caps on existing wetlands programs should not be expanded. Furthermore, OWGA supports additional flexibility and greater equality on wetland programs and that regulations be reflective of a clear and uniform mission or outcome for the programs.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, agriculture faces many challenges, as you are all well aware. The Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association is sincerely appreciative of the opportunity to share our views with those present today on the successes and future needs of conservation in agriculture.
Our association believes that the successful conservation practices that have been developed and utilized in the past will be further improved upon in the future. OWGA also realizes that the cost effective productivity and longevity of our land will not be maintained without a successful complimentary and supportive conservation title in the next farm bill—a title that will function effectively and efficiently with improved commodity programs.
With commodity and conservation programs working together, the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association sees further commodity productivity as well as continued improvement in the condition of our land, air, water, and wildlife resources for all to enjoy.
Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF BILLY R. WILSON, PAST CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL WATERSHED COALITION
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Moran, especially for coming here to Oklahoma today to be with us.
I can't pass up an opportunity to brag on Chairman Lucas, if you would permit me, in front of this crowd. We are certainly excited and pleased to have you, sir, represent us in Congress.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Linda, listen to what I am saying. [Laughter.]
It is rare in these days when we find someone in Congress who understands the things that we go through every day out here on the farm, and we appreciate all three of you people for being here, and we know that you understand that. And we hope that you continue to serve in this capacity for many years to come.
I am here representing the National Watershed Coalition, as you said. I have prepared a beautiful piece of work here in written testimony. If you promise me you will read it, I won't read it all to you. OK? [Laughter.]
And I understand that this is not about appropriations, and you mentioned that—early on that this committee had $17 billion allocated to it to do all of the things that we are here telling you to do. I will tell you today that isn't enough money to do what we need to do. I know nobody knows that better than you, and we will work as hard as we can to get that piece of the pie increased in the future. OK?
I met with the Budget Committee earlier this year and did talk with them, and I know there is certainly a lot of interest to do some things in the future. So when we talk about numbers here that are outside the limits of the $17 billion, we are looking at a five- to a 10-year plan here. We understand that in this farm bill, and so we encourage you to take that into serious consideration when you start to write this farm bill, and especially the conservation title.
We think we need to spend $8 billion to $12 billion a year just on the conservation title. And we know you don't have that this year, but we are committed, as members of local sponsors across this country, to help you get that kind of money.
I also represent local sponsors of watershed projects, which in most cases conservation districts are local sponsors. And I am serving as vice president of the national association. I represent 3,000 conservation districts, 17,000 district officials, and about 6,000 employees here today as well. So we certainly have an interest in the conservation title, not only as it talks about in the watershed program but in the entire title itself.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do want to say one thing, too, before I move on about the support that we got from Chairman Lucas in the passage of Public Law 106–472, the watershed rehabilitation amendments.
Mr. Osborne and Mr. Moran, we are in the Washetaw River Watershed, a Public Law 534 project, where we are sitting today. There is, I believe, 1,040 dams in this project here, and the first one that was built in the world was built right here in this watershed. We had a 50-year dedication a couple of years ago that Mr. Lucas helped us do and attended at that site.
We have started rehabilitation on some of these structures in this project, and that is certainly something that is very absolutely needed in our—rural America as our infrastructure starts to reach the end of its design life and needs major repair.
We are well on the way to do that, and I am proud to announce that Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, the legislature here has seen fit—and you introduced some legislators this morning that were helpful in that that Oklahoma has set aside the money to do the match for the State. So we are looking forward now to being able to get some appropriations to do that work.
I am going to turn now to a thought that I want to share with you that represents—as a representative of the districts and the local—and I think it is time that the conservation districts and our partners regain the lead in setting the agenda for conservation.
And the reason I say that is I think in the 1985 farm bill we saw that taken away from us, and we have been criticized by our producers, our cooperators, in that we have not been able to address the things that they need to do, that our staff has only been able to address those things that are connected to the mandatory programs. We think it is time we changed that.
We have been criticized in those days by some segments of our society that we weren't addressing the environmental issues, and that criticism is warranted in many cases. Since then, we have passed the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a number of other laws that have addressed those concerns.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We admit today that we didn't or weren't doing as good a job at that time as we should have been, but we think we have turned the corner. We think we are ready now to again lead the agenda and provide the services that the American people want and the products on our farms in the environmental area as well as in the commodity area.
So I would encourage you—each of you—to go back and tell your chairman, Mr. Combest, that it is time that the conservation partnership lead the agenda for the conservation program in this country.
The EQIP program has been talked about quite a bit here today. This is the conservation plan for my farm in eastern Oklahoma. This is what conservation operations account does for us as producers. We go in and request services, and these people come and help us design a plan for our farm.
Under the EQIP program, the way it operates, if we are not in a priority area there isn't anything available to help us. Or if we are a limited resource producer and we can't compete in the bidding process, then we don't get to participate. We need to change the EQIP program if we are going to continue to use that.
There are a number of authorities, including the watershed program, that we can use. We need to add a conservation incentives program so that farmers can be compensated for the things that we produce, the products, in the environmental arena that we have been producing for 60 years.
I know my time is up, but I would like to answer any questions that you all might have in this area. But at this time, I am just going to say that it is time that we step up as a conservation partnership, retain or regain leadership in this role, and we want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
When in doubt, improvise. And if I could begin the questioning, and then I will turn to my colleagues in just a moment, in no real particular order.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But, first, to Mr. Wulf, where you commented on the potential goal of raising CRP from 36 1/2 million acres approximately to 40 million acres—tell me, what do you think the impact of that would be on rural America? Would it be positive, negative, indifferent?
I know from the political perspective we work in in DC that it is a very popular concept with folks looking at this issue from the environmental side. But it costs about $160 million a year. Share for a moment if you would.
Mr. WULF. [inaudible]
Mr. LUCAS. The challenges of the technical equipment.
One last thought. Ray, you mentioned the Arkansas River Shiner and the mixing of mandates from one part of Federal law with another and how that channels conservation resources. Are you saying, if I understand you correctly, that if we are going to do things under a different agency, whether it is addressing something like the River Shiner or some other issue, that that other agency should be paying for it, that those resources shouldn't come out of our conservation funds?
We will turn for a moment to Steve. Steve, you commented about the need for technical assistance, of course more resources in EQIP in general, but technical assistance. In one of the earlier hearings we had, one of the assistant chiefs at NRCS on the national level testified that their personnel were working somewhere between 100 and 110 percent of the time, i.e. saying that meeting the present conservation requirements were putting everyone on edge.
Your feel, your response from your memberships and on your own farm out there, do we have enough technical assistance people to do what we are doing now, let alone if we are able to put more resources in? And if not, is it going to take more people to make it possible to do the paperwork, to do the planning, to move the dirt?
Mr. KOUPLEN. Granted, the key problem is dollars. You know, I mean, I know they have probably got less personnel out there than they need, but I would say the No. 1 key issue is getting more dollars in the program and then the—probably the people will follow.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We know that there are a lot of mandates coming down the line, like I said, from different areas—the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. And we know these are going to be thrust upon our producers. They are going to need assistance.
We have read estimates that it will cost anywhere from $2,000 to $60,000 to put together one of these plans, management plans. Our producers at this point in time, with the incomes that they are receiving for what they produce, they won't be able to meet those costs. I mean, it will just be another—like I said earlier, another straw on the camel's back for a lot of producers.
So I would say that initially the need is for more financing, and then I am sure personnel is probably secondary in that issue.
Mr. LUCAS. Scott, you commented on the potential cost of $12 billion over the next 10 years to producers meeting the KAFOs and a number of other requirements coming down that will have a direct impact on, in particular, the livestock industry.
If those resources don't come in the form of some sort of an assistance in conservation, I guess my No. 1 question is, who is going to eat those expenses? And then, No. 2, ultimately who gains the most from those expenses? Then No. 3 is there an obligation to the entire process?
Mr. DEWALD. Thank you. I hope I am able to answer that in the order in which it was presented. I think the most important and fundamental thing that people have to remember—and you all certainly do, but your other colleagues up there don't.
Our producers have no way of passing additional costs on to anyone else, and those costs are costs that we must absorb. We can't go out and mark up our product in order to pay for a program. So the first answer is we can't pass that on, so we either have to absorb it in an operation that is already having profit problems, or we merely have to get rid of that particular operation. And that has a lot of us quite fearful right now, in fact.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You are looking at—$12.2 billion is a lot of money. And EPA to come out and say, ''We don't think this will have a huge—we don't think this is significant, that we are going to put people out of business,'' I think is just a crass statement to be made to begin with.
Now, then, as I recall, one of the other questions was, who is the ultimate beneficiary of the program? The ultimate beneficiary is the whole, and that is the whole country. And the philosophy I think is fairly simple. It is if it is for the good of the whole, then the whole should finance it rather than finance it on the back of the producers.
So we would view that as an opportunity for, if we believe that we need to have KAFO and AFO, TMDL, Clean Air, and other things out there in terms of regulation to protect the waters of the United States, then the beneficiary being the whole should finance that.
I hope I have addressed the three questions there in that being the beneficiary would be the citizens of the United States and future generations.
Mr. LUCAS. And I will ask my last question in two parts. Would you point out to all of us on the subcommittee what you believe, based on your analysis, to be the unmet funding requirements for the rehabilitation program? Something that clearly you and I and those of us in Oklahoma have worked on long and hard for generations.
How far behind are we on rehabilitating those dams that provide flood protection from the back side all the way to New Orleans in this particular part of the country?
And if you would, in a nutshell, discuss the cost effectiveness of what the districts do in regard to how the funds that come through them are utilized.
And then we will turn quickly to my final question to Eddie at that point, who offered the observation, I believe, that is very important that providing food and fiber in basis is still the most critical part of any farm bill, if you would touch on, you think, how in your time in farming and through farm bills how maybe that has changed a little bit perhaps one way or the other. And then I will turn to my colleagues for the next round.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WILSON. As far as the unfunded requirements for the rehab—and we don't have solid dollars because, as you know, in the bill the first couple of years we were going to do an analysis—are going to do an analysis of what the true need is out there. But the best number we have, and the number that we have used, is about $600 million.
We started out $60 million a year for 10 years. We didn't get that much authorized in the first year—$15 million, as you know, what we got authorized this year. But it steps up from that. And as far as we can tell, that is what the need is.
As far as the second question, the cost effectiveness of what districts do, again, it is something that is hard to measure. We are getting better at that. Our partner, NRCS, has been criticized some by GAO in a report that I have here that they do not capture the benefits necessarily that the program or the partnership gets from the districts, or from the partners is what they call it here, which are primarily the districts.
District officials spend a lot of time, and I say ''officials'' because we are officials. We are not volunteers. We don't get paid for what we do. We don't get a salary. But we are elected officials. When we get elected or appointed, we take the same oath of office that you did when you got—when you went into office.
We have an obligation to the citizens in our districts and a responsibility that is spelled out in the statutes, in the law, and we take that very seriously. But at the same time, we do an awful lot of work without being paid for it, and we do it because we think we know it is the right thing to do.
So as far as the cost effectiveness, it is something that is hard to put a handle on. GAO has criticized NRCS for not being able to do that as well as they should, and they are working on that. But we do need to account for the many hours that is put in.
State governments appropriate equally at this point as much money as the Federal Government does to go into conservation. And we have those figures. It is almost a 50/50 split right now.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege the last couple of years to go outside the borders of the United States, and both times coming back to the United States I was glad I was from the United States. We do have the safest and the cheapest food in the world. I mean, I am not scared to go in our grocery stores and knowing what I am going to buy is safe and good for the American people.
Something that I just came across the other day on a survey, the American people gives the American farmer a lot of credibility. As farmers, we have almost 90 percent credibility with the American people. And they feel comfortable with what we are producing and furnishing the food. And the last thing on the survey was they even give our wives our little bit more credibility than us. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. And, no, for some of my friends out there that doesn't mean we are shifting to the left from your perspective. [Laughter.]
Now I call upon the statesman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Lucas took my line away.
Let me see. Mr. Wulf, your testimony talks about that the EQIP program has hurt low-till and no-till producers. And I wondered if you would expand upon that as to what damage EQIP has caused or why it is a negative and not just a neutral.
Mr. WULF. Congressman, if I may stand here. The only detriment there is the inadequate funding of the program itself. You know, when the bid process and the funds are out there available there is just too many other competing sources for those funds.
Certainly, the thing that all of us have continued to hit on this morning is adequate funding, so that our neighbors are not having to compete with each other out there. And good conservation practices are going uncompleted and unfinished.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much. I was concerned that there were specific programs or requirements within EQIP that were causing problems for no-till farmers as compared to what I understand your testimony to be, kind of an allocation of resources, what direction the program is utilized.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Dewald, it seems to me that this KAFO issue is—ought to have a high priority. That it is an area, certainly in our part of the country, that trying to comply with new rules and regulations is going to cost the industry significant dollars. What needs to occur to allow EQIP to better work to solve the issues that confined feeding operations are going to encounter?
Mr. DEWALD. If I may, I would like to expand that just a little bit, because perhaps one of the most damaging things is that we are not only talking about concentrated animal feeding operations anymore, we are now extending to animal feeding operations—people with 300 cows in holding facilities and those types of things.
So what we could see within the program on EQIP would be manure management. Manure is the big issue, the big word. The big word that is being spread in Washington right now is, ''What do we do with the manure?'' There needs to be technical assistance in terms of being able to take the manure to places and utilize it.
I think the other thing that we have tried to stress—manure is an asset if used properly. So our producers need technical assistance and forms of nutrient management plans. They need technical assistance in terms of utilizing animals manure, and the community out there needs to have technical assistance in how it can accept and use animal manures.
Mr. MORAN. Are there size restrictions that limit the success of the current conservation programs?
Mr. DEWALD. As I understand it, yes, there are size restrictions at this point. If the fundamental goal is to protect the environment, which I think it is conservation of soil and water, and with existing restrictions on the size of the operations that might be able to benefit from that, and with EPA's continuing philosophy that it is coming from the larger producers, then we have to provide some access to those larger producers so that we can solve the problem, if indeed that problem exists.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. So, problems sometimes cannot be addressed with the current size restrictions?
Mr. DEWALD. That is exactly right.
Mr. MORAN. I have one more question. This may be for you again, Mr. Dewald, but really anyone. I also want to know how we can make the CRP program better work for—to cover pasture, to cover the non-cultivated areas. It seems to me that we focused a lot of CRP effort on the cultivation side of agriculture and not much on pasture.
And I would like—in particular, I was interested to hear I think you talk about the opportunities to graze, which at least in Kansas creates among our cattlemen some controversy. Is there some balance that we ought to be looking for as far as CRP and its availability for the cattlemen?
Let me also compliment you on your analysis of Washington and manure spreading.
Mr. WILSON. There are some ironies there, are there not?
In my testimony, one of the things that I discussed was the need for land managers such as these folks in this room today and across the street and in Kansas to manage land. The CRP program doesn't allow us to do that. You end up going out, putting a stand of grass in, and have no opportunity to manage it, whether it be prescribed burning, haying, or grazing.
That is not the best thing for conservation. And so we also say in our testimony, and I certainly agree with you, that there may need to be adjustments in payments if there is grazing, so that there is parity amongst producers. That is very clear.
But one of the significant problems, and we have seen it—absentee landowners or even existing—landowners that are right there—without an opportunity to manage that grass stand, you are not going to get an effective grass stand if you can't manage it. You are going to end up in the third or fourth year with a stagnant production cycle.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So that is—we would like to see the CRP program allow for management, allow to manage for conservation, and allow to manage for good grass stands.
Mr. WILSON. First, Mr. Moran, I would like to commend you for your support in the Conservation Enhancement Act. I think your addressing these problems that you—in that Act, and we support you on that. Congratulations. Thank you for doing that.
As for as CRP for grazing and for grasslands, there certainly is a lot of things, especially if we are talking about looking at riparian areas and buffer strips along streams and things like that, I could give you some examples out here in Oklahoma, if we had the time, and we maybe can do that after this hearing, specific examples where this is working, not in cropland but in grazing land. And it is very important. It is a very important tool that our people do accept.
And I have got one example. I am particularly proud of it. I could share it with you, but I don't have the time here—where it could work. So you bet, we can change the CRP program, we can change the EQIP program to make them a lot more manageable.
And the deal is, just like Scott said, it is managing the working lands. What we are interested in is less emphasis on setaside programs and more emphasis on the working lands of America that we make our living on every day.
Mr. WULF. If I could follow up on when we were talking about increasing it from 36.4 up to 40 million, increasing that cap. One of the things that we were looking at is using that increase on riparian areas, like was said earlier.
And, certainly, if we are looking at the grazing perspective of it, if there is areas within wheat fields that can be conserved, and that we can go in there and get some conservation practices on those, and allow us during off season of the major growing areas and the growing times during the seasons there, incidental grazing of those buffer strips, so that we are not having, as producers, to fence those areas off when we are out there grazing our stock or cattle during that period of time.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much. This issue of grazing and the CRP grass on terrace strips to me is closely related, and we have worked hard at trying to get USDA to agree. In fact, Congress put language in legislation a year ago to return the continuous signup for grass strip terraces, and then we have problems with you can't graze the terraces, so it creates a real problem for the farmer who has some grass that can be grazed and some grass that can't on the same area of his farm.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today, and I have tried to sit here and figure out what areas of agreement we have, because essentially at some point you have got to put something down on paper. We have a pretty broad spectrum here from Farmers Union to Farm Bureau to cattlemen and wheat growers and watershed, and so on.
So, very quickly, I am going to check this out on you. It seems to me like there is a universal appeal, not just with this committee but with others who we have heard, that there is a tremendous need for increased technical assistance. I am assuming no one here would disagree.
Occasionally, I have heard people suggest a voucher system, that maybe the current system is overloaded and maybe we need to go to the private sector and be able to obtain some help, because that seems to be very common.
The second thing that we hear a lot is that EQIP is underfunded, that we need more funding. I think only something like one-third of the people who currently apply for EQIP dollars are accepted.
Part of the problem I think with EQIP, and also with technical assistance, is that so many people have to go through all of the paperwork and the planning, and then they don't get approved. So you are wasting technical assistance and dollars, and it is not working very well.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I assume most of you would agree with that, that EQIP needs to be reformed in some ways—shorter contracts, apply to the larger producers as well, and move wildlife to WHIP, and so on.
The last thing that I hear you saying, and I hear other people saying, is that in conservation practices we need to target more specifically. Instead of farm-wide or broad programs, you need to take specific buffer strips, particular erodible land, and so on. So those are the things that I think we agree on.
The areas that I don't hear agreement on, and I would like to have you comment on—I am not going to give a monologue here, which often happens in Washington. We are out of Washington now, so we better not do that—is the issue of CRP. Some people want to expand it. Some people want to keep it the same. And some have—you know, they may not say it publicly—would like to reduce it.
So would anybody like to comment? I know that it was mentioned earlier by various people, but some folks say it raises the price of land, it makes rental land more expensive. And so is there anybody who would like to comment on that, make a general observation?
What I think I will do, because of the microphone situation, I am going to ask two or three questions, and then any one of them that you want to comment on, well, please do. OK? So that is one.
The second issue is funding, and you have all mentioned that—that we have got the Conservation Security Act. And if you figure maybe $20,000 to $30,000 a farm, you are talking $5 billion to $7 billion, and I think Mr. Wilson mentioned as much as $8 billion to $12 billion. And as the chairman mentioned, we are looking at $17 billion total.
And I think Mr. Bowman said that he wanted a lot of money there for commodities, and so you see where the rub is coming. If anybody has a thought on, you know, how you would like to address that problem.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then, just lastly more of a specific question, and that is carbon sequestration. You hear about that a lot. Exactly what does that mean?
And, you know, we have people who have owned a ranch for a hundred years, and they have taken good care of that ranch. And do you pay that guy, or do you just pay somebody who has been farming marginal land and all of a sudden puts it back into grass? That is a difficult issue to get a handle on. Exactly how do you quantify carbon sequestration? How do you pay for it? So if anybody has a thought, I would be glad to hear that.
And so with that, I will hand the mike back to you, and see if anybody has any reaction to those questions.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Tom, and I will go first.
You mentioned a couple of things in your opening that you said we agreed on, and there are some. You mentioned one thing you called the vouchers to hire outside people, and that is a possibility. We have a lot of experience in the watershed program doing that with consulting firms and things coming in to do that, but that doesn't mean that doesn't cost anything. It costs just as much and sometimes more to have it done that way than if we had staff available to do it.
And I will point to a comment by the GAO as they looked at the NRCS. They said that these officials noted several potential drawbacks to using organizations, and there are several of us that do that—watershed coalition contracts with NRCS to provide training as we speak.
But there is a lack of consistency across these organizations in terms of technical skills and concerns about the ability of these organizations to uniformly apply the criteria used to evaluate the environmental benefits of land offered for the Conservation Reserve Program and questions about the availability of suitable contractors in some middle areas.
So we do have some concerns about that, although that is a possibility certainly if, you know, in the short term we can do that.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As far as whether or not to expand the CRP or reduce it, or whatever, as I said in the final comment that I made a while ago in response to Mr. Moran's question, our emphasis—we would like to say the direction, as we talk about taking the leadership of the conservation, pointed more towards emphasis on the working lands and less on setasides.
That doesn't mean we are opposed to CRP. We think CRP has done a good job in this country. There are some concerns in some rural areas that it has had an adverse effect on the economy, and we are certainly, you know, sensitive to that. But the CRP can work and should continue to work.
But we would like to see less emphasis on the setasides and more emphasis on the working lands is the point that I would still like to make.
As far as the funding I mentioned, you have got $17 billion. We understand that. Mr. Lucas often reminds me that he is not an appropriator. And if we could get the money—and I said earlier we just need more money in conservation. There is no question about that. You mentioned the commodity title. There is a subcommittee working on commodity title, and they will write a commodity title. We support the commodity programs, but we still are going to continue to say that we need more money for conservation, if you will, and hopefully we will.
Carbon sequestration, as you mentioned, is something that is hard to get a handle on. It is hard for people to understand. But it certainly may give us an opportunity in the global warming issue to capture some revenue from some sources other than the taxpayer, the general fund, to pay for these.
I have no problem personally at this point as to whether or not—I think if a rancher has been doing a good job for three generations in the family, and they have been sequestering carbon to, you know, improve the air quality and the environmental quality of the global warming situation, they should be compensated for that.
There again, it takes money. Where is the money going to come from? We are going to work on that for you and with you.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOWMAN. As you know, I am a farmer. And if we—and I am surely speaking for the farmers here in Oklahoma. If we could get profitability back into what we are raising, that would save conservation a lot of money as we farmers would be willing to put more of our money into the cost sharing program.
And I would like to bring up an example right now just on one of my farms, and this has been a fight with EQIP. My farm is not in a priority site in this county. But every year when I—after I take my wheat crop off, I go out there in those ditches in the field and I work those ditches, because I don't have any terraces. The people that own the land—she is 90 years old. She just—you know, she has to have the grant to live on. And so I do what I can.
But I don't understand why this farm could not be put in EQIP. It is because it is not in a priority site. But to let you know something, I have just been notified by a pipeline company that—I knew there was one pipeline across this farm, but now I have found out there is three pipelines that goes across this farm. And one of them goes from Enid to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
There is some law where it is stated that those pipelines have to be buried four feet or deeper. They are telling me now these pipelines are less than three feet deep. So we have lost over a foot deep of soil on this farm, and it still does not qualify for EQIP.
So I just wanted to bring that to your attention, because I do think that this site priority needs to be changed.
Mr. WULF. Congressman, CRP—certainly, we not only encourage increasing that cap on that, but also looking at reenrollment. And that is about to come out. We think this has been a tremendous program that has allowed to take some variable type of land and get productive land back out there, and it has also had a side benefit for wildlife as well.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And that is certainly a topic that has had a lot of attention put to it in the past, and also looking at on the enrollment side of coming back in under the same plans and the type of grasses that was approved on the initial part and was approved and put in during that point.
And if we talk about supply and demand forces within the market, and we like to go towards a market-oriented program of some kind, we must also take into account the fact that there must be some type of inventory management to allow supply and demand to truly work. CRP has certainly been one of those items you look at when we are looking at inventory management.
Now, if I could just expand a little bit on carbon sequestration, the issues being raised about the possibility of global warming occurring out there, certain agriculture is in a unique perspective, Congressman, to implement those types of programs to sequest that carbon into the soil. And we would certainly like to see some incentives allowed out there for us in agriculture to do that, because we so are unique in that area.
Mr. KOUPLEN. To begin with, let me say that the Farm Bureau will take a stand somewhere in between on the CRP. We are not for freezing at the current 36 million acres, but, you know, we would like to see that raised possibly up to $38 million.
We think that there are some areas like for conservation purposes—buffer strips and the like—that could be enrolled, but we would not like to see more than 25 percent of any county enrolled in CRP. We think that could be a problem for the local producer in that case.
As far as carbon sequestration goes, that is something we do support, although we are somewhat like yourself, Congressman Osborne, we kind of are wondering how that would work. I mean, we think a producer that does a good job should be paid for that. It looks to me like it is a revenue source for the producer. That does not come from the taxpayer, and that is probably the biggest benefit from carbon sequestration that I can see.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have forgotten what the other question was now. One thing I would like to mention, and I mentioned it briefly when I was testifying earlier, that all of this should be—in your area should be kept in context. I know you are not dealing with actual funding. You are dealing with conservation.
But all of this does come in a green box WTO, and we have got to keep that in mind as we are going forward, because a lot of things have been brought up to help producers and raising loan rates, etcetera. Anything that deals with production or price falls in the amber box, and we have got to stay away from that or the WTO will get into big problems. So I think your committee has a great avenue there to deal with an area that can help producers with their revenue sources.
And one thing I was going to say, CRP I think has been used by a lot of producers as a revenue source. I mean, they have used that as a revenue source for their operations.
Mr. LUCAS. With that, we will take a break and do some technical rewiring here.
[Recess.]
Mr. LUCAS. I believe we have improvised and overcome some of the technical challenges, so let us bring our subcommittee hearing back into order. I lose at least one of my colleagues, Mr. Osborne, in a little while, to the necessity of catching a plane. So I think that the more efficiently we can bring this into focus the better.
I would like to invite the second panel to our table. Dan Lowrance, vice-president of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts from Oklahoma City. Also, Mr. Bob Drake with the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Davis, Oklahoma; Dr. Richard Conner, Professor of Range Economics, Texas A&M, College Station, Texas, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy; Mr. Dan Limmer, director of the South Dakota Audubon Society, Lake Norden, South Dakota, on behalf of the Audubon; and Mr. Alfred Miller, president of the Oklahoma Association of Resource Conservation & Development Councils, Corn, Oklahoma.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And with that, we turn to you, Dan.
STATEMENT OF DAN LOWRANCE, VICE-PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Mr. LOWRANCE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Dan Lowrance, and I am a rancher from Alma, Oklahoma. I serve as director of the Stephens County Conservation District and appreciate your invitation to be here today to share my thoughts on the current and future farm bills.
I am here today as the vice-president of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, representing 88 district boards comprised of 440 locally elected and appointed directors and their 211 employees.
The Association of Conservation Districts believes that the conservation programs for the 1996 farm bill have, for the most part, been a success. The problem lies in the fact that an adequate workforce needed to implement these programs has been lacking.
The Conservation Technical Assistance Program of the NRCS has been unable to meet all of the demands for existing conservation programs. We understand that it takes people to implement programs. In Oklahoma, the NRCS workforce has decreased from over 600 in 1981 to only 320 people today. Not only have the numbers of people decreased, but also the complexity of the work that they are asked to do has increased.
In addition, as we embark on the mission of rehabilitating thousands of upstream flood control structures, thanks to the work of Chairman Lucas, we realize that the people who provided the engineering and the technical knowledge to build these structures are now, for the most part, missing from the NRCS workforce.
Apart from Federal conservation programs, its conservation districts in Oklahoma, we also rely on our Federal partners to provide technical assistance for the implementation of our own multi-year, multi-million dollar state conservation cost share program.
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In short, Mr. Chairman, OACD believes that the success of the conservation programs in the new farm bill will directly depend upon the expertise and the availability of the workforce to implement them. Based on a current workload analysis, we believe that an increase in the Conservation Technical Assistance Program of $345 million nationally over current funding levels is needed to correct this problem.
The current Federal agriculture conservation programs are turning away clients at an alarming rate. EQIP alone is only handling about 25 percent of the available demand for conservation work.
The environment in which current programs are carried out is growing increasingly complex with a broader range of resource issues being identified. And within this context, we do not want to lose sight of the fact that voluntary incentive-based conservation remains the best way to address resource issues in the countryside.
The centerpiece of any farm bill should be a locally-developed, comprehensive, and coordinated conservation plan for the individual farm or ranch. The conservation plan, rather than a laundry list of program selections, should drive the implementation of conservation on private lands.
As landowners and conservationists, we view the individual conservation plan as the last firewall of protection before the next step of government regulation.
In spite of the shortfalls in personnel and in spite of the underfunded programs, we are absolutely sure of one thing. That the partnership between local conservation districts and the USDA natural resources conservation service is absolutely the best and most appropriate delivery system if you wish to see the results of the new farm bill efficiently and effectively written on the land.
farm bills, USDA, NRCS, needs to remain uncompromised in their role as the premier independent conservation technical assistance agency.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When addressing program changes, I suggest that Congress needs to use the following yardstick as a test for new proposals, as well as for considering renewal or extension of existing programs.
farm bill programs should, No. 1, maintain a voluntary, incentive-based approach to help private landowners and managers.
Number 2, increase local leadership and involvement in implementing the conservation plan and programs.
Number 3, it should utilize science-based technology in making conservation decisions.
Number 4, provide land managers with the technical assistance they need to achieve conservation objectives.
Number 5, emphasize the value of cost-effective conservation practices that, for all Americans, enhance quality of life, restore air and watershed health, and contribute to safe and affordable food and fiber.
And, finally, to ensure that all citizens share the financial responsibilities for reaping the benefits that conservation on private lands offers to all of society.
On behalf of OACD, I thank you for the chance to visit with you this morning.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Drake.
STATEMENT OF BOB DRAKE, GRAZING LANDS CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Mr. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, it is awful good to see you up there, not on the field. I am from Oklahoma University, and we are certainly happy to see you in Congress and not on that field.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know you are going to be leaving shortly, so I will just point this out right off. EQIP is now a total and absolute wreck. It needs dollars and people. Without dollars and people, it needs to be completely redone. There is a lot of good about it, but it has got to be taken care of.
That wasn't in my testimony, but I thought I would throw it out because you will be leaving.
Looking at the old programs. Not all of them were bad, though. The Great Plains Program, HACCP program, some of them have a little something to offer.
Now, let us move on here. Cooperation, not regulation. Mr. Chairman, I am Bob Drake from Davis, Oklahoma. I am a producer. I am a farmer. I am a rancher. I walk the walk, talk the talk. Primarily, though, I am a volunteer. I am a volunteer for the conservation of our great country. I love the grazing lands.
I will tell you that a lot of my friends have given great testimony. My testimony is in front of you. I won't be using any of it, but it is in front of you. I appreciate the opportunity to venture out a little bit on it.
The last thing that I said—''voluntary''—that is what I like to hear. I like to hear ''voluntary,'' and you had a lot of folks up here earlier that are voluntary. You have them up here now. We don't cost a whole lot, but we do the job.
My coalition is American Farm Bureau, American Fords and Grass, American Sheep Industry, Berry Industry, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Cattlemen, National Farmers Union, Society for Rangemen, Society for Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Now, sir, if I can work with that group, you can work with that group. And we agree on one thing. We don't agree on a lot totally, but we agree on one thing, and that is conservation for those lands out there, those great, wonderful, grazing lands, 50 percent of our country.
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am not going to give you a whole lot of the testimony that—of how you can do it, because you have already had it. You have got it in all of the literature that I have seen, wonderful presentations, and nothing that I say or would hope to say will contradict any of the testimony that you have heard from these different associations. I don't want that to ever happen.
But that testimony that I had written for me—and it is wonderful, did a great job—it comes from the head. And anything I tell you might come from the heart. In fact, that is where it does come from. And I love it. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't drive 175 miles and get up at 4:30 not knowing how far Weatherford was. [Laughter.]
Had a little time at the coffee shop, visited with a lot of fine folks. [Laughter.]
You know, I talked a moment ago about volunteers, and we also have drafts. We draft a lot of people, and I spend a lot of time drafting people. The reason I want to draft them is because I want them to become volunteers. Our Nation has been served well over the years with volunteers.
In fact, the other day a gentleman was telling me a story, and this is a true story. He happened to be going through the South, and he was walking through a county courthouse square, and on a park bench an old man was sitting there. I said, ''Your old courthouse is kind of run down.'' He said, ''No, sir, it will do for our little town.''
I said, ''Your little flag has leaned a little bit, and that is a ragged old flag you have got hanging on it.'' He said, ''Is this your first visit to our little town?'' I said, ''I think it is.'' He said, ''Well, have a seat.''
And I sat down, and he said, ''You know, I don't like to brag, but we are kind of proud of that ragged old flag. You see, we got a little hole in that flag there when Washington took it across the Delaware. It got a powder burn in it that Francis Scott Key started watching it and saying, 'Oh, can you see?' He wrote that and he sat down, and it got a bad rip and New Orleans, Packingham and Jackson tugging at its seam.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It almost fell at the Alamo. But that is the Texas flag. She waves on, though. She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville, and she got cut again at Shiloh Hill. There was one at Robert E. Lee, Bovert, and Bragg, and the south wind blew hard on that ragged old flag.
On Landers Field in World War I she got a big hole from a Bertha gun. She turned blood red in World War II. She hung limp and low a time or two. She waved in Korea and Vietnam while she went where she was supposed to for Uncle Sam.
Now she waves with our ships on briny foam, and now they just about quit waving her here back home. In her own good land here she has been abused and burned, dishonored, denied, and refused. And the government for which she stands has been scandalized throughout.
Now she is wearing thin, but she is in good shape for the shape she is in, because she has been through the fire before and I believe she can take a whole lot more. So we raise her up every morning, and we take her down every night. And we don't let her touch the ground. We fold her up just right.
On second thought, I do like to brag because you say I am mighty proud of that grand, ragged old flag.
Now, how does that relate to conservation? Did I compare conservation and the volunteers, therefore, with the wonderful volunteers that we had during that war and all of those wars? Of course not. But I compare volunteers with volunteers.
When you get us out there, we will follow you anywhere. You can lead us. But if you try to push us, if you try to regulate us, we are like a herd of cats. We will go in every direction. We will fight you forevermore.
You can't drive us. You can lead us. You can give enough money, and it doesn't take a lot of money to do a lot of the things that I think needs to be done. And we will have time in this, hopefully, for questions. But there are things that can be done that it won't take the money that you think it will take because we have people wanting to do it.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You heard of vouchers. Of course we have a lot of people out there that would use the vouchers. We have consultants that used to work for NRCS. We can bring those people in here. We can make it happen, and it won't take a lot of money to do that.
And I hope that you gentlemen, when you pass the next conservation title, that one thing will be paramount in your mind—good old cowboy common sense. Put people on the ground and let us do what we do best, and we will make you all look good.
Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Drake.
Mr. Conner.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD CONNER, PROFESSOR, RANGE ECONOMICS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. CONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, panel members. The Nature Conservancy appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on the 2001 farm bill legislation. With me today is Jeff Eisenberg, senior policy advisor for agriculture for the Conservancy.
After the statements from the panel are presented, Mr. Eisenberg will answer questions related to general farm bill and conservation policy. I will answer questions for the Conservancy related to the status of economics of grasslands in the country.
In the farm bill, the Conservancy is seeking funding for three programs—the Wetland Reserve Program, the proposed Grasslands Reserve Program, and the Conservation Research Program. Our experience on the ground has shown that these conservation programs have the greatest potential for meeting the needs of conservation and production agriculture.
Other programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and a proposed Stewardship Incentive Program have merit as well.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Wetland Reserve Program is one of the best examples of a program that serves conservation and production agriculture interests. Wetlands are one of the most important natural features found on private lands. They maintain the land by absorbing excess water flows. They provide important filtration functions for groundwater, rivers, and streams. And they provide habitat for fish and wildlife.
These ecological benefits also provide support for production agriculture. The absorption function of wetlands mitigates the severity of flooding events, thereby reducing the loss of valuable farmland. The filtration function reduces non-point source runoff and helps producers avoid regulatory sanction. As sure as highways and bridges are important infrastructure for commercial vitality in this country, soil and water resources are indispensable infrastructure for agriculture vitality.
To date, the Wetland Reserve Program has restored 1 million acres. The demand for participation in the program far outstrips the availability of funding by approximately a 4 to 1 ratio. Oklahoma and South Dakota are among the top 10 States in the country for producer participation in the program. A major restoration effort of wetlands is underway in Nebraska along the Missouri River. In Kansas, the program has doubled in activity during the past two years.
The Nature Conservancy has been working hand in hand with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to create a program that protects grasslands.
You might ask why two disparate organizations would actively cooperate to promote an important piece of Federal legislation. The answer is that both share a strong commitment to keeping working landscapes intact. The Conservancy understands that unless there is economically viable activity in rural America, the land could be lost to less desirable uses such as development.
The Nature Conservancy's No. 1 conservation goal in the west is to keep large grass lands intact. The cattlemen want to keep their ranchers on the ground. The two organizations' interest in this matter are, thus, very much in alignment.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am here testifying before you today primarily because of a study that my colleagues and I conducted at the request of The Nature Conservancy and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The organizations requested this study in order to document what was happening to grasslands throughout the country and why.
An executive summary of the report is attached to this testimony, and the entire report will be made available to your various offices and committee staff next week.
The study documents that the pre-European settlement coverage of grasslands in the contiguous 48 States was approximately 923 million acres, about half of the total land. Most of this potential grassland was west of the Mississippi River, and about 582 million acres of it was on land that is now privately owned.
By 1997, USDA reported only 402 million acres of rangeland in the 22 States west of the Mississippi River, excluding Federal lands.
Losses of grasslands have been greatest in the tall grass prairies and savannas because these lands were better suited for crop production. Thus, States like Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, have virtually lost all of their potential grasslands. However, conversions to cropping and other land uses are not restricted to just tall grass areas.
Mixed and short grass prairies have also been lost. For example, Oklahoma had only about 14 million acres of rangeland in 1997, compared to the 38 million acres of potential grasslands. Similar comparisons for Kansas show 16 million acres remaining from 47 million; for Nebraska there is 23 million left from 44 million.
Grassland losses continue to occur. Historically, the greatest threat to grasslands in the United States was the plow. Conversion of grassland to cropland remains an important threat today, largely as a result of Federal policy providing perverse incentives to convert grass.
Government programs such as loan deficiency payments, subsidized crop insurance, and disaster relief, can act as powerful incentives to convert grass to cropland. This is especially true for land marginally suited for cropping.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other land use conversions, which are population and income driven, have become more important sources of grassland losses in recent times. Many of the remaining grasslands are located in areas with high natural amenities. Low direct economic incentives to an aging population of grassland owners, compared with the longest economic boom in the United States history, advances in telecommunications and other socioeconomic changes, contribute to pressure to convert grasslands into large lot and rural or x-urban homesites.
Between 1990 and 2000, the market price of agricultural land increased 66 percent in the western United States indicating a significant increase in the demand for rural land. Most of this demand originated from non-agricultural interests as prices notably exceeded the productive value of the land.
For example, in many parts of Texas, wildlife-based enterprises, primarily lease-hunting, are generating more income per acre of rangeland than livestock production. This kind of complementary land use activity may offer one of the best hopes for providing the economic vitality needed to sustain the ranching industry in many other parts of the United States in the future.
Unless abated, these income- and population-based demands will not only continue to remove grasslands from their historical uses, but will continue to fragment the grasslands that remain to the point that they may not be of sufficient size to support their natural biodiversity. Additionally, ranchers need large blocks of land to form economic size operations.
I see that my time is out, so I think I will stop at this point.
Mr. LUCAS. We will have some questions for you.
Mr. CONNER. Thanks.
Mr. LIMMER. Mr. Limmer.
STATEMENT OF DAN LIMMER, DIRECTOR, SOUTH DAKOTA AUDOBON SOCIETY
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LIMMER. Chairman Lucas, Mr. Moran, Mr. Osborne, I appreciate this opportunity to be here today and represent the National Audubon Society. The National Audubon Society has over 1 million members and supporters in over 518 individual chapters across the Americas.
Importantly, I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here today and represent myself, a very small family farmer from east central South Dakota. I own and operate a farm of just under 300 acres.
I would like to briefly highlight some of the guiding principles in the written testimony that we have submitted, those being the fact that we think it is important that we build on past successes. We have heard a lot today about voluntary, incentive-based programs. Clearly, they work.
They have worked very well over the past 15, 16 years, as evidenced by the fact that, according to many estimates, CRP alone has provided society over $13 billion in benefits, as evidenced by the fact that in WRP, a very popular program, and in EQIP, another very popular program, we have had interest and participation at a ratio of 5 to 6 interested applications being turned down to everyone being funded—again, a clear call for more funding for conservation not less, even in light of the funding realities that we are dealing with in this round in this next farm bill.
More specifically, I would like to key in on what I believe we need and is necessary for these programs and programs like them—voluntary, incentive-based—to become even more successful in future agricultural policy implementation. We need additional implementation flexibility.
Most of the resource issues, many of them contentious across the country, at a minimum are regional in nature, and often times are local in nature. More farm or ranches should input on a local basis, whether it is through farm organizations or whether it is through the local conservation districts, is important.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Audubon in the Dakotas has worked very hard over the last 2 years, reaching out to landowners, attending farm shows, winter farm shows, attending farm organizational meetings, doing farmer-to-farmer outreach programs, field trips, et cetera, et cetera, reaching out to landowners to receive their input and ask for their ideas and advice on how to improve the implementation of these very important programs.
We also need to expand program eligibility. Both conservation and commodities are areas in the farm bill, both titles that I believe need expanded eligibility. We need to get the benefits and the assistance to those people who need it the most.
In addition, as we go forward and we develop this conservation title, I think it is important that we try real hard not to continue to pit conservation provisions against commodity provisions. We have examples out there in the past ag policy where this impact is the case. One example is the alarming rate of grassland conversion, particularly across the northern prairies, due to the fact that there are other provisions in the commodity title that, in fact, at times can encourage that conversion.
Audubon also supports the Grassland Reserve Program, which will be a new program in the next farm bill, of course. I think that echoes some of the concerns we heard on the first panel today, that there is a need to reward the good players, to reward those people who have resisted the need at times, often times, to possibly convert their native grasslands for the purposes of realizing benefits from the commodity title and farm policy.
And it is important as we go forward that we protect existing and ongoing stewardship gains and resources. Not all people on lands out there are good players. And in spite of the fact that we go forward with voluntary, incentive-based approaches, in spite of what we have heard here today, a resoundingly clear message I believe from all the groups particularly on the first panel, there is a clear desire by those people on the land to go forward and continue and expand a sound land stewardship ethic.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is our responsibility, as we go forward developing the conservation title and the commodity title in this next farm bill, to give them the tools necessary to allow that to occur, and to be even more successful than it has been in the past.
And, finally, I would like to echo concerns that we have heard from many of the other witnesses that it is important that we recognize the need for funding of more technical assistance in the field. Groups like Audubon, other private organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and so on, have in the past provided voluntary assistance to the county offices to help implement those programs.
Those desires I think are still there, and that is one of the ways I believe that we can leverage help from the private sector, without necessarily using the voucher approach, to help leverage the limited amount of funding that we have to go forward in the conservation title in this next farm bill.
Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF ALFRED MILLER, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to be able to come before you as a group, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Moran.
Being today is Saturday, I feel like our sound system wants to take a day off. It is not working like we had planned for it to work, but at the same time it is doing the best it can.
Mr. Lucas, I want to thank you for everything that you do for our district. I appreciate all of the work that you do. I will say it this way. I am glad you have got your job and I have got mine.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am volunteer with the Great Plains Resource Conservation and Development Council, serving as the chairman of the board, as well as the president of the Oklahoma Association of RC&D Councils. RC&Ds have played a strong role in our State by enhancing the environment and improving the quality of life in our communities.
Today I am requesting that Congress support permanent authorization of the RC&D program in the farm policy legislation—legislation that authorized RC&D sunsets in the year 2002.
RC&D was established in the 1960's as a pilot program to perform a number of conservation and rural development activities in areas where major economic and social downturns had occurred. The program has grown significantly over the years a result of its ability to provide local solutions to local challenges. Today there are 348 RC&D Councils serving 80 percent of the Nation and 180 million people. We leverage a $43 million Federal investment into over $1 billion annually to directly support conservation and economic development in local communities.
Today RC&Ds are not sufficiently funded to sustain the program. Since 1990, the number of RC&D areas has increased 50 percent without increased funding.
In addition, to continue the good work of RC&D Council volunteers to serve our communities, and to assist in increasing conservation and economic development in communities hard hit by low farm incomes, I would urge Congress to support three additional technical changes to the law authorizing the RC&D program in the farm policy legislation.
Number one, update our statement of purpose and write the role of the RC&D Council into law. This recommendation is a technical change to the law. The original law authorized the USDA to work with States, the local units of government, and non-profit organizations to achieve our missions. The structure of RC&D councils evolved, and USDA recognized RC&D Councils as the entity that carried out the mission of resource and conservation and development. As a result, we believe RC&D councils need to be recognized in the law.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Number two, define R&D council and affiliations of councils. This recommendation also is a technical change to the law. The designated RC&D councils are the responsible leadership of the RC&D area. The RC&D councils and associations are non-profit entities whose members are volunteers and include local, civic, appointed, and elected officials. Affiliations of RC&D councils are formed in States, regions, and at the national level.
Number three, encourage USDA agencies to provide technical assistance. Language is requested that encourages the USDA to be consistent with their mission and authorities to aid RC&D councils to plan, develop, and carry out programs for resource conservation and development.
I would like to conclude with a brief reference to two projects that were recently completely with Great Plains RC&D Area Association. And, Congressman Lucas, you are very well aware of these two projects. They are in your area.
The Scotch Thistle Eradication Program in Roger Mills County with the Upper Washita Conservation District. We worked directly with 42 landowners on land treatment and provided county residents with information and education for control of invasive weeds, spending $40,435 of local money, and we are currently waiting for $15,000 in Federal matching grant.
Watershed Rehab for flood control structures reaching their designed life of 50 years. Operation and maintenance of these aging structures are becoming very expensive for the conservation districts that have this responsibility without a real revenue source to cover the expenses.
The Great Plains RC&D, along with Upper Washita, Custer County, and North Fork of the Red River Conservation Districts sponsored an AmeriCorp Team that donated 2,688 hours of labor for rehab of flood control structures.
This infrastructure that is quickly approaching its engineered life expectancy of providing flood control needs reinvestment. Upstream Flood Control through the FP–534 and Public Law 566 laws were some of the most successful Federal projects ever performed in the United States—maybe too successful in that they have not required a tremendous amount of Federal dollars to operate on an annual basis. The original cost has been recovered many times over in the prevention of property and life loss.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On behalf of the RC&D Councils, I would thank you for your time.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Alfred.
I now turn to Mr. Osborne, with what little time he has left before he has to go to the airport.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I have to leave early. The few other times I was down here I wanted to leave early, too, but this time I got a chance to——
[Laughter.]
Just a couple of questions. Mr. Drake, you mentioned that EQIP is a wreck, and that is very graphic. But do you have any specific recommendations that you would like to see implemented to fix EQIP?
Mr. DRAKE. Well, I thought maybe I would get your attention on that. That is what I was trying to do, Mr. Osborne.
Dollars and people. If you are going to have a program, and you have a program with just so many dollars, and there is not enough people to carry that program out, and if you have five applications and one is approved, you have four unhappy people. And, particularly, if those people happen to be out in the great panhandle, say somewhere close to Mr. Combest or Mr. Stenholm, it creates a lot of problems for people in DC that don't need to have those created, i.e. the NRCS.
So what I am saying is if you want to leave it called EQIP, fine. If you want to change the name—it used to be called something else—fine. Make it happen, but put—if you put the dollars in there, allow it to have enough money to have the people to carry it ought.
It is like building a beautiful facility on your campus at Nebraska, and then you don't have any money to either staff that facility or put the equipment in there. We do it all the time in Oklahoma, as we all know.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You need to build the facility and then allow enough money to put the people and the staff and the equipment to carry those facilities out. The same way for EQIP.
Mr. OSBORNE. So your main concerns are funding. I assumed so. I understand that.
Mr. DRAKE. Funding and people, but together.
Mr. OSBORNE. Dr. Conner, and Mr. Limmer, both of you represent private agencies primarily. But I know you have a common concern, and that is the loss of natural habitat, the breaking of the grazing lands. My question to you both is: what in the way of Federal policy—I mean, that is our problem here is Federal policy—what do you see that might be done or that you would recommend that might reverse the process or enable us to preserve more of our grazing lands?
Mr. CONNER. With your permission, since the question is about policy, I would like to ask Mr. Eisenberg to answer for me.
Mr. OSBORNE. Sure.
Mr. EISENBERG. Congressman, the Conservancy has worked hand in hand with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to develop a proposal that would protect grasses through easements, basically, 30-year permanent easements, no regulation on the grazing, and basically to allow that economic activity to stay in place.
And the reason why we favor that kind of approach is because the two principal threats are population increases and also cropping pressures from, you know, a variety of economic factors.
So we feel that you need to have sort of a longer term protection to do that, and that is consistent with NCDA policy since 1998, which very specifically was introduced in the House on May 2 by Congressman Schaffer and Mike Thompson. You know, our answer is that the bill that we worked on with NCDA, that has been introduced.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. OSBORNE. Let me just—so you are saying that a 30-year Federal easement—30-year easement, which would be encouraged or funded somewhere by Federal dollars, is that——
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, it is 30-year and permanent easements that are consistent basically with——
Mr. OSBORNE. Well, then, after 30 years it goes away, is that right? Or——
Mr. EISENBERG. For that, yes.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK. All right.
Mr. Limmer, did you have anything that you wanted to add?
Mr. LIMMER. I also would reiterate Audubon's support for a similar type program, which I referenced in my testimony as the Grasslands Reserve Program, which it is being labeled, but basically it is supported by most advocacy groups that are working in that area.
Also, I would go back to reiterate my remarks relative to the fact that not everyone out there on the land is a good player. In spite of the reality of the market stresses that are out there, and the great temptation these days for grassland conversion, in spite of all that, we have got to, I believe, continue some of the past disincentive provisions that we have had in farm bill policy.
What that has been called in the past are not real popular names. One is called Swamp Buster; one is called Sod Buster. They have been cause for great consternation over the last 15 years or 16 years, since they were first put into place.
I don't happen to believe that they necessarily have to continue in that role. I do, however, strongly believe that we need some level of disincentives in place to deal with the tremendous temptation by some to capitalize on other producers within a commodity title that are there, and at times, often times, unfortunately, facilitate that temptation.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, quite frankly, to deal with an ethic out there that is more of a corporate ethic than it is a small farmer ethic. A corporate ethic that is based more in terms of strict and pure economics than it is in its stewardship ethic—that stewardship ethic that you clearly heard today from both panels
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Osborne, and you had better head for the plane.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Osborne, for joining us, and we will see you in Washington next week.
I want to pursue kind of the last question here. I am particularly interested in the grassland issue, the pasture issue. I was thinking as this topic was highlighted about—I have a fourth grade daughter and a seventh grade daughter, and they come home from school and they learned about the rainforest and its important role in ecology, the ecosystem of our world. And yet I am not sure that they have ever heard about the importance of grasslands.
And, Dr. Conner, I wondered if you could highlight the role that grasslands play in our system, and perhaps compare that to the emphasis that we sometimes place on places in the world that we have a lot less control over.
Mr. CONNER. I will make an attempt, in a brief fashion, to address some of the primary ones. I think the first one that is probably nearest and dearest to all of our hearts is the role that grasslands play as a watershed. The fact is that most of the surface water that we use in the U.S. today is produced on the grasslands.
And that role, the role of grass in ensuring the quality and the quantity of water that we need, is there, and the future is very important. Any change in the land use that changes grasslands for cropping or to other uses almost invariably results in lessening the quality of the water that results from runoff off of those lands.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other areas, nitrogen and other nutrient cycling is another very important role that the grasslands provide. It, of course, provides forage and a habitat base for a wide variety of livestock—excuse me—wildlife as well as forage for livestock.
And we have heard mentioned earlier in the panel here that there is a role for grasslands in terms of carbon sequestration. Particularly, that role can be quite dramatic in terms of returning former grasslands to grass after they have been cropped and lost a lot of their organic carbon over the 40 or 50 years that they may have been croplands.
Those are just a few of the very important ecological functions that grasslands play.
Mr. MORAN. In reading the testimony, it appeared to me that the bill is for a 30-year easement. But what I heard Jeff say, it was a 30-year easement or a permanent easement?
Mr. EISENBERG. Actually, the reason why both of those options are there is because there is demonstrated interest from landowners across the country to have both options there.
In California, for example, ranchers have submitted requests to the California Rangeland Trust for 380,000 acres of permanent easements. This we get from the California Rangeland Trust. So whether or not TNT was—some environmental organization was in the picture, cattlemen themselves have been seeking these easements. They formed Rangeland Trust in Colorado. They formed them in Wyoming and other—and, I mean, your very own KLA is considering that very kind of step, as well as Oregon and Idaho.
So, you know, some people have problems with permanent easements. They make some people uneasy. But there is enough demonstrated interest that the NCDA thought it was a good option to have. And from a conservation point of view, we like having it in there.
Mr. MORAN. Unlike CRP, what would the rancher be unable to do on land enrolled in the Grassland Reserve Program that that rancher is able to do today?
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EISENBERG. The expectation is they will be able to do everything they are able to do today, but they are expected to have reasonable management. We have been talking about higher price and all kinds of reasonable management. The only limitation would be that—not to be producing hay off the land until after the end of the local burning season.
And so, you know, there was this wetland proposal that went—a CRP wetland proposal last year that had a flat rule of no haying after July 15. Well, Capilan called up and said, ''You know, that is really nice. But it is sort of dopey because, you know, our burning season is all year long.'' And so we tried to be very flexible and responsive to producer needs.
Otherwise, though, as far as grazing practice, it doesn't address it at all. The intent is to keep the land intact, let economic return be made off of it.
Mr. MORAN. Generally, the land enrolled in a grassland reserve program would already be grassland. But is there much likelihood that we would return cultivated land to pasture?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, the original idea, you know, this has been evolving through discussion nationally. The original idea was just to have existing grass, and then some TNT and cattlemen chapters were saying, ''That is really great, but it doesn't do nothing for our State.''
And so then we had a restoration provision in there for States like Illinois and Missouri, so that they would be able to get—support their cattle industry as well. And then Idaho has been telling me that they would like to have it possible for damaged lands, lands damaged by cheap grass or fire, to be eligible for restoration dollars as well.
So right now it has restoration in terms of broad landscape, and there may be some additional work done in that area to accommodate Idaho's concerns.
Mr. MORAN. And, Mr. Limmer, your testimony—potential program changes. A healthy grassland needs to be disturbed periodically, either by fire or some other method. Does that other method include grazing?
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LIMMER. Are we talking about a grassland reserve program?
Mr. MORAN. In your testimony you are talking about changes in the CRP program.
Mr. LIMMER. OK. CRP. Yes, it would—limited, restricted grazing. The issue of grazing and haying both on a periodic and limited and restricted basis, and in response to emergency disaster declarations on the northern Plains, particularly in the two Dakotas and eastern Montana.
As you may recall, in the past it has been a highly contentious and hotly debated issue. The conservation and wildlife groups were concerned, and I think continue to be concerned that we not turn a program who—like CRP, for example—which one of the three major objectives and goals is, in fact, the management perpetuation of wildlife habitat, that we don't turn that program into a national forage base.
That concern was also echoed by parts of the—other parts of the ag industry relative to people who put up hay relative to, in some cases, the cattlemen's associations up in the north.
I think there is a place for limited and restricted grazing. I agree with what Mr. Eisenberg said that in most cases we would prefer that that limited disturbance occur after the nesting season, depending on which part of the country that you are in. On the other hand, some grazing—the research that has been done shows that grazing and nesting success are much more compatible than, for example, early haying and mowing and nesting success.
But to answer your question more succinctly, yes, I think there is room for those types of disturbances in both programs.
Mr. MORAN. I assume there would be support for continuous signup under CRP for grass strips on terraces that Mr. Jeff——
Mr. EISENBERG. Our basic position on CRP, we basically are following the wildlife group's proposal for 45 million acres. But generally, though, we really prefer the continuous signup, and your other suggestions, including your suggestion to—in fact, all of these programs could serve producers more closely than they have in the past, and are very supportive of the suggestions made by yourself and the other panel members today.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, panel. I appreciate the information you have provided me.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Being a native of western Oklahoma now for several generations, and having a degree in agricultural economics from OSU, and coming from a county that had 14,000 warm bodies in 1930, and at the last census reported 3,400 warm bodies—a rather dramatic drop in two-thirds of a century. And I haven't seen this morning's obituaries yet, so I am not sure just how many of my neighbors are still there with a population of good, solid, but older citizens.
This concept about a grassland reserve program I find fascinating. And I know on first appeal, of course, the concept of holding property in grass is tremendous. The thought of giving producers the ability perhaps to stay on in those areas is tremendous, too.
But like everything else we do in DC it is the devil in the detail. So if I could for a moment, let us focus on that concept, if we possibly could.
Now, in the way that you gentlemen envision such a program being put together, whether it is a 30-year easement or a permanent easement, tell me what all kind of requirements that you would imagine being put in there. I know on the producer's mind, the question that is going to be on his mind is, will I get to run cattle? Yes.
Will I get an annual payment or a one-time payment? Is it what we envision as being some sort of an annual payment over 30 years, or a permanent annual payment, if it was a permanent easement? Give me some feedback, please.
Mr. EISENBERG. We are in the process of getting the bill introduced in the Senate, and that is a subject that came up in one of the States from a likely introducer. But what we had in there was a one-time payment for the 30-year, and a permanent option, and then the producer groups from the State said, ''Well, we need annual payments for the 30-year agreement.''
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we said, ''Fine. Let us have a second option under the 30-year agreement that you could let the producer take it how he wants it. Let them take a lump sum, or let them take annual payments for the 30-year term.'' It seems as a practical matter it would be difficult to do annual payments in perpetuity for a permit, but—but for a 30-year—actually, and what we also had originally was that even for the lump sum they could take it one time or over a 10-year period.
But we want this to work for producers, and, really, there is no constructive suggestion which hasn't been accommodated.
Mr. LUCAS. Because I know I have discussed with several members of the panel in the past some of the consequences relative to this. In my own area, Roger Mills County is one of those counties with 25 percent enrolled CRP. We are maxed out.
It has definitely had an effect on land prices and rental prices. When those CRP figures came in, that, in effect, set a floor. Would you be—after implementing such a program, would you see land sales, rangeland sales immediately go up, the cash price of the land reflect whatever the payment schedule would be?
I would like an observation on that if you would, and what effect that would have.
Another question: if a rancher signed up for this program—as Mr. Limmer very accurately pointed out, not everyone is the typical good steward of his or her ranch or his or her farm that we all want to be. Unfortunately, some are not.
If you signed up for this kind of agreement, would you be agreeing to a stocking rate on that piece of property for the next 30 years? Or forever?
Mr. EISENBERG. The answer to your second is no. NCDA's policy that they want their members to be good stewards—we were talking to them about how you would possibly translate the national legislation. And it was enough to bring us to our knees, and we put that one aside.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The only enforceable term would be, ''Don't break the soil,'' and then—so there is nothing about regulation or——
Mr. LUCAS. But I have watched some of my neighbors define good grazing practice at the most amazing quail habitat. And then I have seen other neighbors who define the surface of that desk as good grazing practice, too. How you enforce that I think really is my question.
And there are some other areas—in western Oklahoma, we have energy production and development. There is even wind energy companies coming into the picture. As you envision these 30-year or permanent grassland reserve program easements, would it be prohibitive of the pipeline companies that are laying pipe, would it affect the ability of people to do seismograph work? What would it do to oil and gas leases?
I know these are a lot of questions, but there are things that have to be thought through, I believe, and perhaps you have already done all of this in any kind of a concept.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much, if any of that, do you want answered? You know, the bottom line is the goal is to keep the land intact and so it is unrestricted completely of grazing practice. There is other things—you know, there is a lot of factors that—you know, we want to get it right. That is the basic answer.
Mr. LIMMER. I just want to respond. Mr. Chairman, I think you are right on mark. I think what you are doing is, in fact, emphasizing what I indicated earlier in my testimony, the need for more local input and more local control, because, as I stated earlier, we have both societal and resource issue concerns that are usually, at a minimum, regional in nature, and more often than not very localized in nature, all the way down often times to a township.
And the kinds of issues that you bring up and point out relative to land market dynamics, relative to deed encumbrances, whatever they may be, pipeline easements, etcetera, etcetera, are the kinds of issues that, in my mind, it is imperative or addressed on a local level.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I would, again, reiterate my call for, in this conservation title, more program implementation flexibility to provide for that kind of control. We have a vehicle in place that has been operating in some States relatively well; in others, maybe not so well. It is called the NRCS State Technical Committee.
It is a forum where landowners, producers, farmers, ranchers, farm organization reps can come together and work in a local sense on these kinds of issues. We have been doing that in South Dakota—in South Dakota, in eastern South Dakota, for the last two years. As you may be aware, we have been dealing with an extremely contentious wetland issue relative to NRCS wetlands determination of both depressional wetlands and sloped wetlands.
The result was a lawsuit and a lawsuit settlement. And we have gone forward, and we worked in an unprecedented, collaborative way with a myriad of farm organizations, conservation and wildlife groups, on an agreement in principle that we could all live in what is now being implemented this month—a farmable wetlands pilot program to deal with just one of those highly contentious issues.
So, again, I would just reiterate in answer to your concerns that, in my opinion, the answer to those concerns is program implementation flexibility and local input.
Mr. CONNER. If I might just address the question you had regarding land prices. There would be a lot of regional variation here, I think, that the bottom line is—if I might, is that I think when you are talking about programs the size of this one, you are not talking about creating a huge source of demand for land. In fact, the demand for land itself is not there. It is the demand for development rights.
So to the extent that in some areas where there is a lot of demand, this is just another competing source of funds, and it would have, in at least the short run, potential for increasing prices perhaps a little bit.
In the long run, I don't think it would be significant at all, though. And primarily because what you are doing here is not preempting the land used for agriculture; you are simply preempting the development of that soil.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Well, even with 5 million acres in the very beginning, this is the kind of program that obviously would be popular with a lot of my colleagues, especially those who don't live in the directly-impacted area. And the question of whether it is spread out or concentrated could certainly have an impact within any community.
But I do, as a member of this committee, and as a member of the full committee, have a responsibility as an advocate of conservation, as an advocate of promoting the consistent supply of food and fiber for this great Nation, also to keep an eye and an ear turned towards those beginning farmers and ranchers, those young people out there trying to break in.
And a lot of the programs that we have discussed and we have on the books do have a direct position on those folks. And in my home community there is a growing trend of absentee land ownership, and I am not talking about people who live five miles down the road. I am talking five States away. That is having an impact on us, and I think we have to factor that into these decisions, too. But that will come on another day.
Mr. Moran, do you have any further questions?
Mr. MORAN. I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. We would like to thank the panel for your insights and your input, and we will continue to work together as we work our way through the challenges of writing the next farm bill.
In recent days, there has been a little bit of a change in the circumstances on the other side of the building in Washington, DC, in the United States Senate, so that will add some unseen twists. But we will work our way through.
So, first, let me once again thank Southwestern Oklahoma State University for the use of the facilities. We thank the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts for the refreshments back there.
Without objection, the record for today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from witnesses to any question posed by a member of the panel.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of Dan Limmer
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee on the Conservation Title of the farm bill. I will outline Audubon's general objectives for the Conservation Title of the next farm bill. I will also discuss my view from working in the Dakotas on the strengths and benefits of the current programs and changes or new programs which would further the goals of conserving our resources in rural America.
Audubon has over a million members and supporters in 518 chapters throughout the Americas. Our organization works to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, with a focus on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity.
Role of Audubon: Audubon is uniquely situated to take a leadership role in developing and implementing a strategy to promote conservation programs during 2001 and for the next farm bill. With the policy expertise resident in Audubon's Washington, D.C. office, we have a knowledgeable staff with a proven capability to impact the consideration of the next farm bill. With our field staff in the Dakotas and other agricultural states, we can effectively seek input from local landowners and develop ''on-the-ground'' advocates for new farm conservation provisions.
In the current year, Audubon has worked to lay solid foundation of support to continue strong conservation provisions in the farm bill. We propose to take a leadership role in this effort by developing broadbased collaboration in Washington D.C. in conjunction with our state-based offices nationwide to support continuation and enhancement of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and other conservation provisions in the next farm bill. These partnerships will consist of conservation and wildlife groups, together with farmers, ranchers, and their organizations. Our objective will be to develop effective positions for the Conservation Title in the new farm bill.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Audubon has developed an initial set of priorities for the next farm bill that focuses on continuation and expansion of the CRP and the WRP, together with the introduction of amid- and long-term Grassland Easement Program (GRP). These priorities also include the continuance or replacement of disincentive programs such as ''Swampbuster'' and ''Sodbuster'', to deter wetland and grassland conversion. Audubon has a solid record in this area, which makes us uniquely qualified to lead a collaborative conservation effort, in conjunction with conservationists, farmers, and ranchers.
The following briefly summarizes Audubon's ongoing and projected program initiatives for conservation farm policy and the upcoming farm bill.
Washington DC-based Farm Policy Initiatives: The efforts of Audubon in regard to ongoing resource issues of agricultural land use on local, regional and national levels continues to raise the visibility and impact of our organization on these critical fronts. For example, subsequent to our involvement in the recent wetlands litigation with the USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in South Dakota, Audubon has participated in months of working meetings with a litany of stakeholder groups. These meetings focused on the field determination and implementation by USDA/NRCS of wetland mapping conventions and minimal effect exemptions for linear and sloped wetland subsequent to the lawsuit settlement. As a result, a consensus agreement for mapping conventions that establishes an appropriate depressional wetland identification process has been signed by the NRCS, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The presence and participation of Audubon has been key to the development of USDA policy and procedures that sustain and protect wetland habitat in the northern prairies that are critically important to wetland-dependent wildlife species.
Concurrently and in complement with these agricultural land use conservation issues, Audubon has developed a summary of guiding principles for the ongoing implementation of agricultural programs and for the development of the 2002 farm bill. These guiding principles are designed to further promote the partnerships between farmers, ranchers, landowners, and conservation organizations and agencies that Audubon has worked long to achieve. We continue to strongly support voluntary, incentive-based programs that inspire and promote economically sustainable land use. While recognizing that farmers and ranchers are the primary stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife, we believe that with the right tools we can improve the quality and productivity of the nation's agricultural lands while also protecting and enhancing our precious natural resources.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Policy Priorities: 1More funding for conservation, not less. Continued and increased funding for expanded conservation programs is critical to giving farmers, ranchers, and landowners the ability to conserve soil, water and wildlife with permanent solutions while supporting and maintaining family farming operations. Expanded and fully funded Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Environmental Quality Enhancement Program (EQIP) and Wildlife Habitat Incentives to Program (WHIP) are key to effectively and efficiently assisting land managers to implement strong conservation plans on the agricultural landscape. New programs are needed to conserve and protect native grasslands and other areas that exhibit significant ecological values.
Soil, water and wildlife benefits must be treated as valuable conservation commodities. The most recent USDA Natural Resources Inventory data show that conservation efforts continue to fall short. Agricultural and forestlands are being lost at a rate of three million acres each year. Topsoil is eroding into waterways at a rate of two billion tons each year. Wetland losses continue at 54,000 acres each year. The continuance and expansion of voluntary, incentive-based policies and programs will help to improve the quality and productivity of private agricultural lands.
Agricultural policy and conservation programs must be expanded beyond traditional farm commodities. Farmers, ranchers and landowners, regardless of the type of agricultural production, must be eligible for farm program benefits and support. It is critical to a sound land stewardship ethic to provide assistance to those who need it most. Alternative and traditional agriculture must receive the support necessary to implement farm and ranch conservation plans that provide conservation benefits for both the owner/operator and society. Towards this end, Audubon will continue to formulate innovative partnerships to develop effective, on-the-ground conservation agriculture policies.
Adequate funding for conservation program field support staff is imperative. To effectively and efficiently administrate and implement conservation programs in the field, USDA/NRCS field personnel must be fully funded, staffed and trained. Innovative technical assistance on the ground is critical to any effort to advance sound conservation stewardship.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the national debate over farm programs, production support, and the 2002 farm bill goes forward, Audubon will continue to give high priority to initiatives that support our farmers, ranchers and landowners as they work to conserve soil, water and habitat resources for all the birds and other wildlife that depend upon them.
Field Based Farm Policy Initiatives: Work closely with local landowners. Audubon has been actively implementing Landowners/Stakeholder Meetings in the Prairie Pothole Region to link habitat protection on privately owned lands with effective farm policy, now and in the future. In addition to working with local farmers to identify on-the-ground avian predator management and habitat conservation strategies, Audubon is bringing landowner input to the national policy level, as result of the interface between Audubon staff in the field and in D.C. Most recently, we gave a farm bill presentation to farmers and ranchers at the North Dakota Grazing Conference, and received valuable input for program elements of the proposed ''Grasslands Reserve Program''.
Educational activities for farmers. Audubon participated in Winter Farm Shows across the state of North Dakota in the 1999–2000. In addition to educating and working with private landowners about conservation programs and options for their farming operations, Audubon utilized this opportunity to get input and suggestions for conservation provisions for the upcoming farm bill directly from the people who utilize these programs on the ground.
Promote economic incentives for farmers. Audubon has actively supported and promoted a ''Farm Stewardship Initiative'' that will provide economic and conservation opportunities for farmers to protect riparian areas in the Red River Valley of North and South Dakota and Minnesota. This effort includes the possible development of a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) for the Red River Basin and has the potential to become a program role model for other areas of riparian concern across the country.
Work collaboratively with other local organizations. Building on our success with past Farmer-to-Farmer outreach, Audubon worked with the US Fish and Wildlife Society, Ducks Unlimited, and North Dakota Wetlands Trust, and Delta Waterfowl on Summer Grasslands Tours in 1999 and 2000. These opportunities were used to promote landowner and legislator awareness and support of the conservation and economic benefits of long- and mid-term grassland easements. Similar efforts will be used in the future to promote a ''Grassland Reserve Program'' in the 2002 farm bill.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Educate congressional representatives. Working as a member of the Northern Great Plains Working Group, Audubon is partnering to compile an informational booklet on farming for Waterfowl and other migratory birds in the Northern Great Plains. This will be targeted to congressional representatives and their staff, to demonstrate the importance of conservation provisions in current and future farm policy bills.
Active participation in local technical advisory committees. In South Dakota, the litigative settlement for our joint wetland delineation lawsuit against the Natural Resource Conservation called for the establishment of State Technical Committee Working Groups to determine environmentally sound methods for mapping wetlands and determining minimal effects parameters. Audubon has been a very active participant in these working groups, and as a result has helped to develop policies that will protect the temporary and seasonal wetland resource so critical to migratory birds.
Work at the local level to develop needed legislation. In South Dakota, Audubon worked on an ''Agreement in Principal'' with over 35 organizations and agencies to promote wetlands conservation on private lands. These collaborating entities range from Duck Unlimited and the SD Game, Fish and Parks Department to the SD Farm Bureau and Cattleman's Association. This agreement was the basis for Senator Tom Daschle's small farmed wetlands legislation, which is scheduled for implementation in early June 2001.
Potential Program Changes 1)Farmers and ranchers should have the option to ''disturb'' CRP contract lands to enhance grassland/rangeland management. This is particularly important with re-enrolled CRP acreage because over time, other weeds and grasses can choke native grasses out. Healthy grasslands need to be disturbed periodically, either by fire or some other manipulation.
Grassland Reserve Program: It would be both beneficial and appropriate to reward those farmers/ranchers who have practiced wise stewardship on their lands by not converting native grasslands to crop production. A Grassland Reserve Program would help to offset the continued conversion of the lands highlighted by recent USDA Natural Resource Inventory reports.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The USDA should not require a minimum acreage requirement for a Grassland Reserve Program. This requirement could inadvertently preclude the enrollment of small, but intact parcels of native grasslands, which should be preserved.
If a contract bid point system for a Grassland Reserve Program is structured in a way similar to the Conservation Reserve Program, neighbors with contiguous parcels of grassland should receive proximity points to facilitate the enrollment of less fragmented tracts of grassland.
Statement of Steve Kouplen
Mr. Chairman. Fellow Committee members. Hello. I'm Steve Kouplen, a rancher from Beggs in Okmulgee County. I'm honored to speak to you today. I serve as president of the largest agricultural organization in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. We have more than 127,000 member families.
Our affiliated organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, has already made extensive comments on this issue. So, I will take this opportunity to put an Oklahoma spin on what we would like to see in the conservation title of the next farm bill.
Oklahoma has a fervent history of support for conservation—ever since the desperate times of the Dust Bowl. Today's farmers and ranchers believe strongly in the conservation of our soil and water because agriculture relies on the sustainability of these resources. Conservation of these basic resources benefit all citizens by providing cleaner air and water, even though the public at-large is probably not aware of these benefits.
We would like to see the next conservation title build upon the foundation of the current one. Following are our specific suggestions.
Regarding the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, or EQIP, we think the EQIP program should be retained but reformed. The first reform we suggest is to put more money into it. Second, we're not supportive of the existing ''priority area'' concept. We feel more producers could be assisted with smaller, yet beneficial projects, if the money was spread around more. And third, technical assistance needs to be expanded in this and other programs.
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the expansion of state and Federal regulations on agriculture producers, we think there should be a program to provide financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to help them implement unfunded state and Federal regulatory mandates. These mandates farmers and ranchers are facing, include such things as: requiring Clean Water Act permits for smaller animal feeding operations; requiring producers to meet a Total Maximum Daily Load water quality goal in their watershed; and using the Clean Air Act to require control of dust and odor in agricultural operations. EQIP could serve as the vehicle to provide this type of assistance to producers.
Regarding Environmental Incentive Payments, we support a voluntary environmental program that provides producers with additional options for adopting and continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion, and wildlife habitat.
Oklahoma is a ardent supporter of continuing the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. More than 23.5 million acres of land in Oklahoma is used for grazing. This is a tremendous renewable resource.
Regarding the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, we continue to support this program. We support a limited increase in the amount of acreage eligible to be enrolled in CRP with new acreage targeted toward buffer strips, filter strips, wetlands, and grass waterways.
I would like to leave you with these
thoughts. Keeping agriculture producers on the land by assisting them with conservation programs and technical assistance demonstrates a laudable commitment by this Nation to the long-term sustainability of domestic production agriculture. Voluntary conservation programs have a history of success. I urge you to keep these programs voluntary, and to maintain the confidentiality of the farmers and ranchers who participate in them.
Voluntary conservation programs and the technical assistance provided by the NRCS are the best buffers against costly and unnecessary regulation of production agriculture. I urge you to continue these types of programs which have a broad benefit all citizens. Thank you.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Testimony of Alfred Miller
I am a volunteer with the Great Plains Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council, serving as chairman of the board, as well as the President of the Oklahoma Association of RC&D Councils. RC&D have played a strong role in our state by enhancing the environment and improving the quality of life in our communities. Today I am requesting that congress support permanent authorization of the RC&D program in the Farm Policy Legislation.
RC&D was established in the 1960's as a pilot program to perform a number of conservation and rural development activities in areas where major economic and social downturns had occurred. The program has grown significantly over the years as a result of its ability to provide local solutions to local challenges. Today there are 348 RC&D Councils serving 80 percent of the Nation and 180 million people. We leverage a $43 million Federal investment into over $1 billion annually to directly support conservation and economic development in local communities.
In addition, to continue the good work of RC&D council volunteers to serve our communities and to assist in increasing conservation and economic development in communities hard hit by low farm incomes, I would urge Congress to support three additional technical changes to the law authorizing the RC&D program in the Farm Policy Legislation:
Update our statement of purpose and write the role of the RC&D Council into the law.
his recommendation is a technical change to the law. The original law authorized USDA to work with States, local units of government and non-profit organizations to achieve our mission. The structure of the RC&D councils evolved and USDA recognized RC&D councils as the entity that carried out the mission of resource conservation and development. As a result, we believe RC&D councils need to be recognized in law.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Define RC&D council and affiliation of Councils.
This recommendation is a technical change to the law. The designated RC&D councils are the responsible leadership of the RC&D area. The RC&D councils and associations are non-profit entities whose members are volunteers and include local, civic, appointed and elected officials. Affiliations of RC&D councils are formed in states, regions and at the national level.
Encourage USDA agencies to provide technical assistance.
Report language is requested that encourages the USDA agencies, consistent with their mission and authorities to aid RC&D councils to plan, develop, and carry out programs for resource conservation and development.
I would like to conclude with a brief reference to two projects that were recently completed by the Great Plains RC&D Area Association.
Scotch Thistle Eradication in Roger Mills County with the Upper Washita Conservation District. We worked directly with 42 landowners on land treatments and provided county residents with information and education for control of invasive weeds spending $40,435 of local money and we are currently waiting for $15,000 in Federal matching grant.
Watershed Rehabilitation for flood control structures reaching their designed life of 50 years. Operation and maintenance of these aging structures are becoming very expensive for the conservation districts that have this responsibility without a real revenue source to cover the expenses. The Great Plains RC&D along with Upper Washita, Custer County, and North Fork of Red River Conservation Districts sponsored an AmeriCorp Team that donated 2688 hours of labor for rehabilitation of flood control structures. This infrastructure that is quickly approaching its engineered life expectancy of providing flood control needs reinvestment. Upstream Flood Control through the FP–534 and PL–566 laws were some of the most successful Federal projects ever performed in the United States. Maybe too successful in that they have not required a tremendous amount of Federal dollars to operate on an annual basis. The original cost has been recovered many times over in the prevention of property and life loss.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Testimony of Bob Drake
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Bob Drake a rancher and resident of Davis, Oklahoma. I am Chairman of the National Grazing Lands Initiative (GLCI) Steering Committee and am here today to provide testimony on behalf of the GLCI. GLCI is founded on the principles of voluntary conservation efforts and respect for private property rights. GLCI emphasizes high quality, voluntary technical assistance, expanded grazing land research and education, and a more knowledgeable and informed public.
The Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI) formed in 1991, today is a partnership of nine organizations including the National Association of Conservation Districts, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Soil and Water Conservation Society, the Society for Range Management, the American Sheep Industry, The American Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, the American Forage and Grassland Council, and the Dairy Industry. GLCI recognizes that technical assistance for private lands is not adequate to meet the conservation needs of the Nation's grassland resources. Through this partnership, we have encouraged Congress, USDA, and the public to provide the necessary assistance to meet the growing challenges of grassland management.
Grasslands are the thread and fabric that tie the Nation's landscape together. Rangeland, pastureland, and other grazed lands are included in the nation's one-half billion acres of non-Federal grasslands. Since 1982, 22.7 million acres of grasslands, an area roughly the size of Indiana, have been converted to other uses. Use of improved management strategies is paramount if these grasslands are to continue meeting the growing societal demands and provide economic stability for rural communities.
Grassland is a substantial component of the agricultural economy and is the largest of all agricultural uses. ''The forage-livestock industry contributes more than $60 billion in farm sales annually, and the $11 billion hay crop is the third most valuable crop after corn and soybeans.'' (American Forage and Grassland Council/AFGC) The country's economic and environmental well being depends on these lands. Society benefits from an available supply of food and fiber, clean air, healthy wildlife populations and habitat, improved fisheries and aquatic systems, healthy riparian areas, improved water quantity and quality, reduced potential for flooding, and less sediment in streams and reservoirs, by having healthy grazing land.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Private grazing lands constitutes nearly half of the non-Federal lands in the United States. Our land represents the single largest land use in the nation. Furthermore, private-grazing lands represents some of the most extensive wildlife habitats in the United States. A large variety of wildlife species are dependent upon private grazing lands for some or all of their habitat need, even as the American economy depends more on these lands for its water and food supplies.
Grass establishment serves as the foundation for many of today's conservation practices, but lack of management after establishment reduces the total benefits that could be provided. Current farm bill programs have limited applicability (funding and authority) in addressing the resource concerns of grazing lands. Additionally, many programs that are being utilized to address grazing land problems are lacking scientific support. The 1996 FAIRA included provisions for a Conservation of Private Grazing Lands program. The intent of the program is to accelerate technical assistance from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service to grazing lands, allowing ranchers to voluntarily increase the level of management to improve the amount of benefits provided by properly managed grasslands. Funding authorized for $60 million has yet to be appropriated.
Today over 355 million acres of grazing land (280 million acres of rangeland and 75 million acres of pastureland) are in need of conservation treatment. At the current rate of investment in technical assistance, a little over 3 percent of the conservation needs on grazing land is being met (12 million acres treated annually). If we are to get ahead of the game we need an increased investment in on the ground technical assistance. With the appropriate amount of assistance we can reduce the nations dependence on the use of regulations to protect our natural resources, that we as ranchers enjoy the privilege of managing. We know that good land management is a benefit to both our economic well being and the nations environmental health.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Significant national issues impacting grazing land are:
Invasive brush and weed species —Wind and water erosion—Wildfires —Salinity problems—Urban sprawl—Droughts—Market volatility—Inadequate grazing systems—Overgrazing—Complexity of resource laws, programs, and regulations & other resource issues!
Trends. The relative importance of the nation's grassland ecosystems is now being recognized for both the economic and environmental values. ''The maximum values of these benefits are in most cases meet by lands that are in good health and capable of sustained production through active management decisions based on scientific principles. (Society for Range Management/SRM)
Increased understanding of grasslands allows owners and managers greater opportunities to develop and implement enterprise diversification plans, improving the economic stability of the operation. Dairy farmers are finding that grass-based dairies in many situations can improve net revenues, while increasing aesthetics, environmental benefits and quality of life. Conservationists rely more on grass and its management to improve resource conditions. Grasslands are serving the Nation as buffer strips, grassed waterways, riparian buffers and heavy use areas, as well as backyard habitat for wildlife.
Conservation Needs. Current public policy fails to take full advantage of our forage, grassland, and range resources. As a result, we are failing to reap the full economic, environmental, recreational, and aesthetic benefits. Even worse, we are jeopardizing the long-term health of the grassland agriculture system that has served as a foundation of all sustainable agriculture and of human civilization for millennia.'' (AFGC)
Technical Assistance funding needs to be increased to facilitate NRCS's ability to accomplish their traditional mission of providing assistance to landowners to plan and apply resource management systems. Increased assistance will also enhance the effectiveness of current and future farm bill programs. The need for ecosystem planning is paramount to the stewardship and sustainability of private grazing lands. This planning needs to be provided to landowners by NRCS and it needs to start on the farm or ranch level.'' (SRM) Funding for NRCS technical assistance must be restored to pre–1985 levels or more to allow us, as owners of the nations private grazing lands, to voluntarily manage these valuable natural resources.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The upcoming 2002 farm bill provides an opportunity to revise existing programs or develop new ones to meet grazing landowners needs. Flexible programs providing appropriate assistance, both technical and financial are needed to address grassland management, and restoration needs. These programs will need to be science based, and adaptable to the local conditions and customs. The bottom line is that grassland agriculture cannot be left out of the technical and financial assistance arena of the next farm bill.
Public Benefits
Forage, grassland, and range resources promise benefits to every American in many important areas, including:
Food and clothing from plant and animal products, including meat, milk, and wool
Abundant wildlife habitats and aesthetically pleasing landscapes for recreation, enjoyment, and appreciation
An alternative source of energy and industrial raw materials
Environmental protection for soil, water, and air
The economic value of these benefits is very significant. Equally important, although difficult to quantify in dollars, are the environmental, aesthetic, and recreational benefits, which provide an invaluable public good.'' (AFGC)
Available conservation assistance will allow grazing landowners and managers to develop and implement their conservation planning decisions that maintain and improve grazing land resources. Benefits include an increase in forage production, increase in water infiltration, decrease in soil erosion, increase in sequestering green house gases, improved nutrient management, a decrease in water runoff, and an increased opportunity for recreation.
NRCS is the technical assistance agency that can assist the grazing landowner and manager to economically address the environmental concerns of the public. Today there are more potential conflicts than ever before on private grazing land. Grazing landowners implementing their conservation plan decisions reduces the need to develop and implement new regulations for land management. Today's management of grazing land is not just about making a profit, but managing the land to maintain it's economic capabilities while increasing or maintaining environmental qualities on and offsite.
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Testimony of Dan L. Lowrance
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dan Lowrance, a rancher from Alma, Oklahoma. I serve as a director of the Stephens County Conservation District and appreciate your invitation to be here today to share my thoughts on the current and future farm bills.
I am here today as a Vice President of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, representing 88 district boards comprised of 440 locally elected and appointed directors and their 211 employees. I believe that it is appropriate that these hearings are being held today in western Oklahoma. Within a few miles of where we sit this morning stand some of the milestones of the conservation movement in this country. In 1948 near the community of Cloud Chief the first upstream flood control dam constructed by USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (then Soil Conservation Service) Cloud Creek Site 1 still stands today providing flood protection for citizens along the great Washita River Basin. The trees of the first conservation windbreak planted in this country still stand near the community of Dill City. Along with the miles of terraces, waterways, and hundreds of other conservation practices installed over the past 60 years, the efforts of local conservation districts and our partners the state conservation agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service have helped bring this area and indeed a large area of the Great Plains from the desolation of the Great Dust Bowl to the prosperity we see today. By protecting and preserving our soil and water, we are protecting our way of life.
My invitation to testify here today asked me to address three questions.
How are current farm bill programs operating?
What changes need to be made to farm bill programs and their funding levels?
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are current programs or new programs needed to help producers comply with regulatory standards?
These three questions are complexly intertwined and will be addressed and discussed here together.
The Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts believes that the conservation programs of the 1996 farm bill have for the most part been a success. The problem lies in the fact that an adequate workforce needed to implement these programs has been lacking. The Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Program of NRCS has been unable to meet all of the demands for existing conservation programs. It takes people to implement programs. In Oklahoma alone the NRCS workforce has decreased from over 600 in 1981 to presently only 320 people. Not only have the numbers of people decreased, but also the complexity of the work they are asked to do has increased. The impact of concentrated animal agriculture activities on water quality has created a need for the education of urban Oklahomans on the whole concept of private lands conservation. New emphasis on grazing land conservation has introduced the issues of invasive plant species and threatened and endangered animal species. In addition, as we embark on the mission of rehabilitating thousands of upstream flood control structures, thanks to the work of Chairman Lucas, we realize that the people who provided the engineering and technical knowledge to build these structures are now for the most part missing from the NRCS workforce. Apart from Federal conservation programs, as conservation districts in Oklahoma, we also rely on our Federal partners to provide technical assistance for the implementation of our own multi year, multi million dollar state conservation cost-share program. Our state conservation cost-share program figures reflect that Oklahoma's private landowners have invested an average of $3.50 for each state dollar spent for conservation on private lands.
In short Mr. Chairman, OACD believes that the success of the conservation programs in the new farm bill will directly depend upon the expertise and availability of the workforce to implement them. Based on a current workload analysis, we believe that an increase in the Conservation Technical Assistance Program (C001) of $345 million nationally over current funding levels is needed to correct this problem.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current Federal agriculture conservation programs are turning away clients at an alarming rate. EQIP alone is only handling about 25 percent of the available demand for conservation work. To meet current existing demands, EQIP needs to be funded at the $350 million dollar level. There is also a need for some of the procedural and bureaucratic barriers born out of the Commodities Credit Corporation to be removed from the current system.
The environment in which current programs are carried out is growing increasingly complex with a broader range of resource issues being identified. There has also been a proliferation of well meaning, but ill-conceived, regulations aimed at addressing many of these issues. Within this context, we do not want to lose sight of the fact that voluntary incentive based conservation efforts remain the best way to address these resource issues in the countryside. The centerpiece of any farm bill should be a locally developed, comprehensive and coordinated conservation plan for the individual farm or ranch in question. The conservation plan, rather than a laundry list of program selections, should drive the implementation of conservation on private lands. Furthermore, additional funding is needed in the new farm bill to put conservation practices on private lands. Currently an average of $17.00 Federal funds per acre is spent on public land for conservation measures as opposed to an average of $3.00 per acre on private land. Private lands require and deserve a much higher figure.
In spite of the shortfalls in personnel and in spite of the under funded programs, we are absolutely sure of one thing: That the partnership between local conservation districts and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is absolutely THE best and most appropriate delivery system if you wish to see the results of a new farm bill efficiently and effectively written on the land. farm bill to farm bill, USDA-NRCS needs to remain uncompromised in their role as the premier, independent, conservation technical assistance agency. The unique partnership between local conservation districts, state conservation agencies, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, has over a 60 year history been one of the true success stories of American government. It has provided voluntary, incentive-based assistance to citizens and private landowners whose goals have been to improve their productivity, their environment, and their way of life. As landowners and conservationists, we view the programs provided by these agencies as the last ''firewall'' of protection before the next step of government regulation.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's a simple concept. With voluntary technical assistance based on environmentally sound principles comes economic growth, and a flourishing environment for our rural and urban landscape in America. With regulation comes economic shutdown. OACD believes that the importance of preserving this partnership is maybe even more important today than it was in the 1930's. There have been rumors in the past and even today that there are those who wish to dilute this partnership by combining Federal agencies for ''efficiency's'' sake. We believe that would be a grave mistake and we urge this Committee to use its power and authority to ensure that the Natural Resources Conservation Service always remains a stand-alone agency of our Federal Government.
When addressing program changes, I suggest that Congress needs to use the following yardstick as a test for both new proposals, as well as for considering renewal or extension of existing programs.
farm bill programs should:
Maintain a voluntary, incentive based approach to help private landowners and managers protect their soil, water, wildlife, and related resources. The National Association of Conservation Districts has recently proposed an $8 billion dollar incentive based program for locally-led incentive based voluntary conservation. The Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts supports this concept.
Increase local leadership and involvement in implementing the conservation plan and programs, setting priorities, developing policies and advocating natural resource conservation and management.
Utilize science-based technology in making conservation decisions, including those for accountability and baseline establishment.
Provide land managers with the technical assistance they need to achieve conservation objectives.
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Emphasize the value of cost-effective conservation practices that, for all Americans, enhance quality of life, restore air and watershed health, and contribute to safe and affordable food and fiber.
Ensure that all citizens share the financial responsibilities for reaping the benefits that conservation on private lands offers to all of society.
On behalf of OACD, I thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
Statement of Scott Dewald
Chairman Lucas, and members, thank you for holding this public hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research in Oklahoma. Chairman Lucas we welcome you home and we thank you for your ongoing commitment to being home as much as possible and for your dedication to your constituents in Oklahoma particularly as it regards the farm bill and conservation issues including such things as research and the rehabilitation of flood control structures. Members we thank you for participating in this hearing, your presence here is indicative of your commitment to shaping public policy which is in the best interest of rural America.
I am Scott Dewald, Executive Vice-President of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association. The size, scope and breadth of our agricultural industry is well known by each of you, so therefore I will not belabor those points. We are very grateful for this opportunity to provide you with our views on the conservation provisions of the 2002 farm bill.
This bill must include a strong, effective and well-funded conservation title.
Livestock production is important to the management of our nation's agricultural lands. Grassland pasture and range was the single largest land use in the country, accounting for 31 percent of the major land uses in the lower 48 states. Livestock operators manage more than 300 million acres of cropland. These statistics provide ample justification for a major Federal investment in conserving the lands. The investment being made by USDA has consistently declined since the passage of the 1985 Food Security Act.
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The 2002 farm bill must make a major, new commitment to providing livestock producers with conservation cost share and incentive payments assistance in the context of voluntary, incentive-based programs.
Livestock producers continue to face costly environmental regulations as a result of state or Federal law designed to protect water quality. The Federal regulations under the Clean Water Act include the Total Maximum Daily Load Program (TMDL's), and the proposed new Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's) permit requirements. Federal regulators also are exploring the possibility of expanding Federal regulation of agriculture under the Clean Air Act.
The commitment to financial assistance that is needed in the 2002 farm bill has to be matched by a similar commitment of public and private technical assistance. The 2002 farm bill must reverse the trend that started with the 1985 Food Security Act, and restore technical assistance to at least pre–1985 levels. Further, while we strongly oppose it, we are none the less in what appears to be a never ending call for more stringent (although not always technically sound) regulations from a variety of Federal agencies including, EPA and the USF&WS. Because of this, the need for technical assistance will do nothing but escalate.
Current water quality expectations for the livestock industry are projected by the industry to cost livestock producers with operations of more than 50 animal units at least $12.2 billion over 10 the next years. Please see attachment 1 for additional information.
xplicit provisions must be enacted that structure and support the joint effort of Federal and non-Federal technical assistance providers that will be needed to support this work. A voucher system should be developed to support the non-Federal technical assistance providers' role.
There is a great deal to be accomplished in the next 10 years and this will be an expensive effort, but we could start addressing these issues through substantial amendments to the existing Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), or in an entirely new program.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If carried out through EQIP, EQIP must be amended to focus exclusively on soil, water and air quality issues. If we focus on these issues we will do a much better job of conserving our resources and still obtain secondary benefits for wildlife.
he current wildlife objectives supported by EQIP should be moved to the existing Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), making WHIP the wildlife program for working agricultural lands.
We believe that it is counter productive to many conservation efforts to predicate program decisions on anything less than our original objective of conserving soil and water.
Producers' costs and technical assistance needs for the ongoing maintenance of manure management systems must also be funded.
his could be done in EQIP or through some other incentive payments program.
An incentive payments program will work only if the payments are tied to real costs, according to conservation plans that are accountable and where producers will have ownership of the practices.
he program must ensure that producers be compensated fairly relative to producers across county, state and regional lines for the work and activities undertaken with the incentive payments.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should be amended. We believe there should be flexibility in the CRP program to enable producers to enroll whole fields, partial fields and buffer strips. This added flexibility will allow us to utilize site specific information so that producers and the programs can focus resources where they are needed the most.
We also believe that the CRP should include provisions to manage CRP lands for long-term sustainability. Currently producers are prohibited from managing for healthy grass stands. Management tools including prescribed burning, haying, and even grazing should be available to landowners for the sustainability of CRP lands. Payment adjustments may be necessary to ensure that parity among producers is achieved. Lastly as it regards CRP and other programs, we feel it counter productive to displace the use of non-natives with natives which in many cases results in a loss of productivity. In many cases these decisions detract from our original goal of conserving soil and water. These decisions must be left up to the producer and he or she with adequate informed technical assistance can base their decisions on agronomy and soil health.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This farm bill should fully fund the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI) and its voluntary technical assistance program for grazing lands. Further, we should provide individual producers with options in this Conservation Title directed at protecting and preserving grasslands which have been largely ignored in past farm bills.
As you well know conservation programs are a two way street. The best programs have no merit if landowners are not willing to implement them. We are extremely concerned that the disincentives to participate are starting to outweigh the incentives. Having spent the past 18 months dealing with the proposed listing of critical habitat for the Arkansas River Shiner we have become quite familiar to the term ''Federal nexus.'' As we understand it, the provisions which establish a Federal nexus and what authority that grants non-agricultural agencies, are statutory and are found in the Endangered Species Act. We would be grateful if this committee would forward our concerns regarding this issue to the House Resources Committee, who we understand has jurisdiction over the ESA. Producers are reluctant to enter into agreements when they are uncertain of the liability or unforeseen responsibilities they may incur, and the confidentiality or more importantly the lack thereof of any information they may provide.
Lastly we want to take this opportunity to thank this committee for its commitment to research. Our Association if fully supportive of the research facilities in Oklahoma including the Southern Plains Range Research Station at Woodward and the Grazing Lands Research Laboratory in El Reno. We thank each of you for your commitment to ensuring that our research facilities are properly maintained and equipped so they may continue to carry out fundamental research projects which meet the needs of a progressive and long standing industry. The research facilities in Oklahoma are extremely important to the economy of this entire diverse region, and we recognize these regional differences and understand their respective research programs must reflect them.
Again Mr. Chairman, Thank you for hosting this public hearing in Oklahoma.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ATTACHEMENT 1
Staff considered the costs associated with both structural and agronomic measures and the associated technical assistance. The analysis also includes an estimate of the costs operators will face as they seek additional land for the application of their manures. The analysis uses estimates of capital costs for such work, as used recently by USDA, current public and private programs that are carrying out such activities, and published USDA estimates of the number of livestock and poultry operations of various sizes subject to these provisions.
The up front costs are approximately $9.8 billion, and include the costs associated with preparation of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (s), the financial and technical assistance costs of designing and constructing or upgrading manure management systems, and the initial costs of simply locating persons with land that are willing to accept excess manure. The on-going management costs total approximately $2.4 billion, and include the financial and technical assistance costs of ensuring that manures are applied according to sound agronomic and conservation practices.
This analysis does not represent the full costs of meeting EPA's recently proposed CAFO regulation. It does not include the regulation's proposal for covering all swine lagoons and poultry manure, nor does it include the costs of lining lagoons and pits in areas that could leak to groundwater that are in turn connected to surface waters. It also does not include the costs of hauling excess manure for application to the additional land necessary to meet a phosphorous standard (although we have estimated the costs of finding the land that could be used for this purpose).
More than $12.2 billion is needed to address the projected 10-year costs of Federal, state and local mandatory manure management, water and air quality protection requirements. The structural elements of these costs are projected to be $9.8 billion (including the preparation of comprehensive nutrient management plans), and the ongoing 10-year management costs are projected to be $2.4 billion. EPA has estimated the costs of its proposed CAFO/AFO regulations for operations with more than 300 animal units at $930 million a year. EPA has underestimated the true costs to these livestock and poultry operators because, by OMB scorekeeping rules, they assumed that all of these operations are already in full compliance with current Federal CAFO standards and requirements. We also believe that EPA has underestimated the true costs that operations between 300 and 1000 animal units will face to ensure they are not exposed to significant Clean Water Act liability.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These needs are national priorities that must be met with the funds made available for this purpose, irrespective of other priorities that might exist for the program.
Statement of Ray L. Wulf
Chairman Lucas, Members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee, on behalf of the Oklahoma Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union, representing the interests of over 300,000 farm and ranch families across America, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to share with the Subcommittee our observations and recommendations about current and future conservation programs. And, it is a delight to have you as Chairman of the committee and holding this field hearing in Oklahoma. Our friendship goes back many years to our association while you were at the State Legislature. It is a friendship I have valued and look forward to for many years to come.
Current Programs. The conservation programs currently authorized under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996, have, for the most part been sound programs. They have served to conserve our soil resources, as a side benefit enhance wildlife habitat and improve the quality of both air and water through participation incentives and technical assistance. However, we believe there is room for improvement. It is important that the level of funding be adequate to ensure the long-term success of these initiatives and that adequate funding be available so that agriculture producers desiring to implement conservation practices have the funding to do so. We believe such an approach will serve to promote the broadest possible development and application of conservation measures. After reviewing the current programs we make the following observations and suggestions concerning conservation program authorities and funding:
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Te Conservation Reserve Program has been successful in targeting marginal lands and bringing them out of production. The original CRP legislation significantly reduced soil erosion and dramatically improved wildlife habitat (as a side benefit), by idling highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land. The current CRP, however, placed wildlife habitat conservation on equal footing with soil and water conservation priorities. From Oklahoma's perspective, the CRP is a good long-term conservation investment program that should be returned to the original CRP direction that also accomplished wildlife habitat. Continuing the current direction, producers should receive additional payment for the added wildlife benefits they are not being compensated for under the current bill.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We support:
Raising the cap on total enrollment to at least 40 million acres with the difference from the current level of 36.4 million acres to be used primarily for enrollment of riparian areas such as filter strips and other areas subjected to water erosion on slopes and hillsides and to heavy wind erosion and sanding. We would additionally support incidental grazing of these riparian areas with restrictions during the growing season. This would work well with wheat pasture grazing where grazing does not occur until after the growing season for grasses has been completed but yet where riparian areas exist along side green wheat.
Reducing emphasis on whole farm enrollments.
Ensuring compensation rates that are comparable to local rental rates plus a provision of management incentives.
Reviewing and enforcing the aggregate county-entry limits.
Reviewing the requirements and benefits of planting expensive and often un-needed five-way seed mixtures as cover crops.
We need to recognize differences exist in the country and one size does not fit all. Here in Oklahoma we support re-enrolling existing CRP acreage which has a previously accepted grass stand according to conservation practices recommended at the time of first enrollment. Producers should not be required to destroy current stands to meet a multi-diversity culture standard that results in additional costs to producers, the government, the environment and wildlife as a result of a stand that may require multiple years for re-establishment. Short of the above, the Secretary should be given authority to grant waivers based on local determination of whether stripping existing stands is a viable local option given local conditions.
Return to method of placing the most emphasis on soil types and topography rather than wildlife benefits for determining eligibility.
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allowing whole field enrollment that would encourage producers to maximize the full benefits of the program.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). We recommend expanding the WRP by removing the cumulative acreage cap and providing such funds necessary to address the current and future demand for this program.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). A number of states have initiated state-funded farmland protection programs. We support additional funding for this program to encourage greater cooperation between Federal and state authorities in order to protect and preserve farmland from development.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is a program to encourage the development of habitat for fish and wildlife on private property through cost-share assistance for habitat development and implementation. We support the goals of the program to be re-authorized and funded at sufficient levels.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This program has been successful in providing financial, technical and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers. However, its success has been limited due to funding levels that were reduced shortly after the program was authorized. This lack of adequate funding has resulted in the rejection of many worthwhile projects that would have received cost-share assistance under the old Agriculture Conservation Program (ACP) and Great Plains program, the predecessors to EQIP, and forced a singular focus on broad-based watershed priorities. As you might expect, this has created bitter feelings among some farmers and ranchers. There are so few technical assistance funds available that some producers will not apply because they know of the limited funding. The lack of funding combined with low farm income is hurting our investment in the land. As much as producers would like to take care of their land, they will only do as much as current farm prices will allow.
The current EQIP program has left out many low-income producers. The process should be based on need. It has hurt low-till and no-till producers who are already adapting as early innovators conservation cost-saving measures at their own expense.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ratings should be based on soil and water conservation as the primary priority with the accomplishment of wildlife objectives as a secondary benefit. Applications with other benefits should not receive greater weighted scoring than those targeted for traditional soil and water conservation needs. We should focus on marginal lands based on soil type. We recommend additional funding for EQIP to address the tremendous demand for this program, which has been estimated at three times the current funding level. We recommend at least 50 percent of state funding should be directed to ''statewide concerns'' allowing more local discretion for targeting priorities.
Along the lines of cost share assistance funding, we believe priority should be placed on providing assistance to producers impacted by drought, flood and other natural disasters to assist with restoration. One example would be to provide funding for restoring native grasslands eliminated by drought.
Mr. Chairman, as you know we recently have wrestled with the designation of the Arkansas River Shiner as a threatened species here in Oklahoma. Now that the Federal Government has made its' determination and designation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proceeding forward to determine a plan for re-establishment of that species along a river system that stretches three-fourths of the way across the state impacting private landowners across this state. We strongly oppose any actions taken by Fish and Wildlife concerning threatened and endangered species to utilize funds appropriated for agriculture to carry out recovery plans mandated on producers. Such funding should be provided by the agency requiring such actions and not through EQIP or similar technical assistance cost share programs where funds are already limited. If such programs should be used for this purpose, those funds should be transferred from the impacting agency's budget and administered within the USDA function.
While we do not support the use of EQIP funding or other agriculture conservation mechanisms for these purposes, we fully support appropriate funding compensating producers in this taking of lands.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Watershed and Other Conservation Measures Rehabilitation
Mr. Chairman, we recognize and appreciate the leadership that you have demonstrated on working to authorize and fund watershed rehabilitation. We support your efforts and encourage you to continue the crusade to ensure that all conservation cost-share practices be considered as part of this concept so that all of our conservation efforts are maintained with rehab investment dollars.
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). This program is beneficial to farmers and ranchers that receive cost-share assistance for implementing conservation systems. However, action is needed to ensure that NRCS has the resources to provide technical assistance to those producers who want to adopt sound conservation practices but are not seeking cost-share assistance.
For example, if a producer already has terraces in place and wants to shift from a minimum tillage to no-till planting, he needs access to timely technical assistance in order to successfully make the transition to a higher level of applied conservation.
Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative (CPGL)
This initiative is designed to provide technical, educational and related assistance to owners of private grazing lands in order to expand the multifunction of this resource through better management, erosion protection, water conservation, habitat development and greenhouse gas sequestration. Although not a cost-share program, the technical assistance concepts contained in the CPGL are clearly consistent with the development of a mutually beneficial private/public partnership to enhance the productivity and sustainability of privately owned resources and should be supported.
NRCS Management Continuation. We strongly support NRCS remain as a separate entity and employment of personnel not be included under the Farm Service Agency management. The technical expertise of the NRCS has provided service and new technologies to producers with uncompromised technical assistance on a voluntary basis.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
New Initiatives. In addition to suggested improvements in the existing conservation and technical assistance programs, the National Farmers Union also urges consideration of several new initiatives that are complementary to the ongoing efforts to ensure the sustainability and high level of stewardship of our agricultural natural-resource base.
Conservation Security Act (CSA). The Conservation Security Act (CSA), a bipartisan Congressional proposal, provides voluntary incentive payments to producers for the application of appropriate conservation measures on land that is currently and likely to remain in production. The CSA is designed to target conservation payments to family farmers and ranchers engaged in production agriculture in a way that is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), while encouraging increased levels of environmental stewardship. We support this framework for conservation payments as a way to reward both those who have undertaken the establishment of conservation practices in the past and those who implement future activities.
The Conservation Security Act creates the Conservation Security Program (CSP) which provides a comprehensive, flexible, voluntary approach to farm conservation policy by providing incentive payments to all farmers and ranchers (farmers) for maintaining or adopting conservation practices on land in production.
Stated objectives of the CSP: Promote conservation of soil, water, and energy.
Conservation Security Contract: Farmers enter these contracts, which contain a conservation security plan outlining the practices to be adopted, with the Secretary of Agriculture. There are three Tiers of practices. Tier I contracts last 5 years and Tier II & III contracts last from 5 to 10 years (at the option of the farmer or rancher). Tier III practices are the most extensive.
Tier Practices: Tier I practices which include nutrient management, pest management and cover cropping, can be adopted individually. This tier recognizes those producers who voluntarily implement conservation practices, and receive no compensation for their investment. Tier II practices are system practices such as rotational grazing, buffers and borders and wetland restoration which all are in addition to Tier I practices. Tier III is a whole farm conservation plan that addresses all resources in addition to Tier I & II practices.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tier Payments: The Tier I annual payment cap is $20,000. The Tier II annual payment cap is $35,000. The Tier III annual payment cap is $50,000. Payments are per individual or entity.
Advance Payments: For participating in CSA, farmers and ranchers will receive a one-time immediate payment equal to the greater of 20 percent of the annual payment or $1,000 for Tier I, $2,000 for Tier II, or $3,000 for Tier III, respectively that is deducted from the total value of the contract.
Payment Criteria: Payments would be based on implementation of management programs and best management practices, foregone income for maintaining or instituting practices and cost associated with farm research and demonstration projects.
Other Conservation Programs: The CSP complements current conservation programs—it does not take money away from other Federal conservation programs. Farmers can still receive incentive and cost-share payments under Federal agriculture programs that cover non-CSP land. A participant may receive payment and cost-share from any other non-Federal source on the same land enrolled in the CSP.
Funding: Funding for the CSA comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation. In addition to the technical assistance funds provided to USDA (NRCS), the CSA CCC funding includes education, outreach, and monitoring investment.
Trade Implications: The payments fit into the Green box and are not trade distorting
Soil Rehabilitation Program. In many parts of our country, adverse weather, disease, and pests have decimated significant areas of cropland. The incidence of these problems has reduced the productive capacity of the land and poses an ongoing threat to that capacity for at least an intermediate term of 3 to 5 years.
We support the implementation of an intermediate-term soil rehabilitation program that would provide both technical and economic assistance to family farmers so they may undertake needed stewardship activities to restore these resources to at least a historic level of productivity.
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, here in Oklahoma, where we have experienced devastating droughts and floods in recent years, soil productivity has been severely affected. We have seen many examples of reduced productivity because we have been given limited tools to address soil and pasture rehabilitation problems. Without Federal assistance, this scenario is beyond the economic capacity of most producers. This program would also help mitigate the loss of Actual Production History for crop insurance purposes over time and reduce crop insurance indemnity payments as well as reduce the need for ad hoc disaster programs in the near term. This program would allow the soil to build itself up and be in reserve for future generations production.
Carbon Sequestration Program. Agriculture is in a unique position to provide an environmental offset to carbon dioxide releases into the atmosphere through sequestration of carbon in the soil. We support appropriate incentives and technical assistance to encourage the implementation of crop and livestock production activities to establish and compensate producers for on-farm carbon sequestration. In addition, this initiative should promote the development of a commercial market for carbon sequestration credits that is open to participation by producers and or their cooperatives.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee. I will be pleased to respond to any questions at the appropriate time.
Statement of Billy R. Wilson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Billy Wilson, Past Chairman and a member of the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) Steering Committee. I am a rancher and a registered professional land surveyor from Kinta, Oklahoma, and I am pleased to represent the National Watershed Coalition and its members at this farm bill hearing. The National Watershed Coalition is privileged to present this testimony in support of the most beneficial water resource conservation programs ever developed in the United States, and very likely in the world. Subcommittee Chairman Lucas said, ''the farm bill is too important not to meet those that will be affected by it face to face.'' You could not have picked a better location to do that, than here in Oklahoma with our rich heritage and leadership in developing, promoting and implementing watershed conservation programs. I welcome you to our state. Oklahomans and many National Watershed Coalition members are conservation pioneers. We also understand that conservation and protecting the environment will be major goals of the next farm bill. We support those goals. We understand this is not a budget or appropriations hearing, but we would be remiss if we did not raise some financial issues for your consideration. In an earlier hearing, Chairman Lucas recognized that funding was a key issue, and your subcommittee wanted to look at how conservation dollars are utilized. Funding and program policy and implementation are closely related. I hope however, to emphasize the conservation benefits these programs provide. Those benefits far outweigh program costs, and should be the centerpiece of our national conservation programs and policy. I will also make other conservation suggestions not focused solely on the watershed. All these programs should complement one another, and are of interest to the NWC.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before I get into program specific issues, let me offer some general observations. All Americans have a great deal at stake in the 2002 farm bill. No activity is as important to the nation's landscape and environment as is agriculture and rural America. Private crop, pasture and rangelands account for 50 percent of our land, and private forests another 20 percent of the land in the lower 48 states. The next farm bill, properly crafted, can provide funds and incentives to help farmers and ranchers achieve national goals for the environment, farm communities, and public health. What happens to rural America and American agriculture over the next five years, and the farm bill determines that direction, may be as critical to our nation's economic and environmental future, as what has happened over the last 50 years. We propose reforms where we believe reforms are needed, not for reform's sake. Farm programs currently cost about seven-tenths of one percent (0.7 percent) of the Federal budget. This low expenditure allows Americans to enjoy a food supply whose abundance, quality, and affordability are second to none. We believe this amount should be increased. Things I discuss will provide immense value every day to every citizen.
Annual direct payments to farmers have skyrocketed from less than $10 billion in the early 1990's to a record $32 billion in 2000. Through this period, annual conservation spending has held constant at less than $2 billion, a decline from 20 percent to 6 percent of spending. Without fundamental changes, the next farm bill will likely average $20 billion a year for traditional farm commodity programs over the next five or more years. But traditional commodity programs at best modestly advance, and can to a significant extent undermine, efforts to help family farmers, the environment, and public health. A new farm bill should move comprehensively. It should focus at least $12 billion per year on conservation programs and stewardship incentives, as well as programs for research, marketing, and rural economic development that supports independent and resource-conserving farms. Farmers and ranchers can and want to take practical steps to enhance water supplies, reduce flood damages, control erosion and sedimentation, improve wildlife habitat and long-term soil productivity. However, almost three out of four who seek assistance for most conservation programs are turned away because of a lack of funds.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Family farmers and ranchers also face serious economic problems. When Federal farm programs began there were more than six million farms. Today there are fewer than 2 million. Today's farmers face increasingly concentrated and diminished marketing alternatives and record low prices. Farm policies have encouraged these declines because they primarily support farmers only to the extent they grow large volumes of a small number of ''program crops.'' Farm programs can do more to help farmers and farm communities, while at the same time creating a healthier environment for us all. That should be a major goal of the next farm bill. Our NWC sees the Small Watershed Programs as an underutilized tool in achieving these ends. They should be the 2002 farm bill centerpieces. Virtually every conservation activity or practice can be delivered by using the Small Watershed Programs. No other program has that flexibility.
THE SMALL WATERSHED PROGRAMS.
Since the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) represents the sponsors of nearly 2000 watershed project sponsors throughout the country, I will start with comments regarding the USDA assisted watershed programs. These programs were designed to fill a critical gap in natural and water resources protection, the gap between those individual conservation plans which address needs on individual farms and ranches, and the much larger natural resource projects planned and installed by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management. Another critical difference, and a strength of these watershed programs, is they are federally assisted, not Federal. They are led and directed by those local people most directly affected by the problems and solutions. The Federal Government helps as a partner, contributing technical and financial cost-sharing assistance. Watershed project sponsors are special purpose entities of state government such as soil and water conservation districts, watershed districts, conservancy districts, counties, etc. Their officers support the voluntary, locally led with incentives approach to getting conservation applied to the land.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is not an overstatement to say that our nations small watershed programs (PL 78–534 & PL 83–566, along with the Resource Conservation and Development, RC&D, Program) have provided benefits to our citizens far in excess of their costs. Yet these programs, which have the potential to improve environmental health and provide exceptional monetary returns to society, are not adequately funded. There are many reasons why that is the case. Many people oppose development even though those it provides benefits to society, and is planned using current environmental rules and regulations. It's somewhat like the situation we have with energy in the west today. If needs and demand grow, and no plans are made to address those needs, shortages and damages result. The main reason usage of these programs to provide watershed protection has fallen, is that after the great Midwest floods of 1993, Congress took funds from the watershed program accounts to assist with flood recovery efforts. Congress knew the NRCS would need to devote its energy and personnel to flood recovery efforts, and reasoned the cut could be made in 1994 while recovery was going on. Those cuts were promised to be restored to the watershed programs when the recovery work was done. It's no secret that those funds were never restored to the ongoing watershed programs. While the Federal share of the need throughout the country is estimated at about $250 to $300 million a year for watershed project installation, the annual amount available since 1994 has been less than $100 million. We sincerely believe Congress and the Administration should restore these watershed programs to the robust place they occupied in our conservation arsenal some years ago. We desperately need them working for our nation.
Why should the Federal Government be involved with these watershed programs?
They are programs whose objectives are the sustaining of our nation's precious natural resources for generations to come.
They are not Federal, but federally assisted, locally initiated, sponsored and owned. Project decisions are made by the people affected.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They share costs between the Federal Government and local people. Local sponsors pay between 25 and 40 percent of the total costs of watershed projects.
They produce net benefits to society currently estimated at $2 billion per year. The most recent watershed program evaluation demonstrated the actual ratio of benefits to costs was approximately 2.2:1. The actual adjusted economic benefits exceeded the planned benefits by 34 percent. The study also recognized that not all benefits were accounted for, particularly environmental benefits. Wouldn't it be nice if other Federal programs did so well?
They consider environmental values. Projects are subject to the discipline of being planned and implemented following the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal '' Principles and Guidelines for Land and Water Projects.'' That is public scrutiny.
They are flexible programs that can adapt to changing needs and priorities. Objectives that can be addressed are flood damage reduction, watershed protection (erosion and sediment control), water quality improvement, rural water supply, water conservation, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, recreation, irrigation and water management, etc. These are flexible programs emphasizing multiple use, a very valid resource concept.
They can address the needs of low income and minority communities.
And best of all they are programs people like!
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATERSHED AUTHORITIES
There are some watershed program improvements we suggest be addressed in the 2002 farm bill. If adopted the legislation would be strengthened and made more consistent with other authorities. Some would involve amending the legislation. We suggest:
All watershed project authorizations go only to the Agricultural Committees in the House and Senate, instead of having some of the larger plans go to the ''Public Works'' committees. The Public Works committees are used to dealing with the larger Federal projects planned by the US Army Corps of Engineers for example, and don't really handle these smaller USDA federally assisted projects smoothly. Nor do the Public Works Committee's fund these projects. Funding comes through the Agriculture budget.
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clarify and simplify the cost-share rate for municipal and industrial water supply to be 50/50 for both current and future needs, and remove the internal obstacles that prevent the USDA from utilizing this portion of the watershed authority. Rural development is still a stated USDA and Federal priority. Helping rural areas with water supplies is rural development. The authority allows USDA to cost share on municipal and industrial water supplies, but they have not been allowed to use that authority.
Eliminate the requirement that projects have a ''minimum of 20 percent of their benefits attributed to agriculture.'' Too often that requirement has been used to keep rural development from occurring, or keep a small, rural community from participating.
Provide an equal standing for non-structural measures when the primary purpose of the project is flood control.
Authorize the use of conservation easements on all land uses.
Provide project sponsors the same terms and conditions for easement acquisition as provided in the Wetland Reserve Program and the Emergency watershed Protection Floodplain Easement Program.
The local sponsors of these ''federally assisted'' watershed projects have a tremendous investment also. In many cases they have paid to get options on needed land easements or rights, in anticipation of the Federal share of the funds being available on a timely basis. Many sponsors have had their easement options expire, as the Federal share of the money was not available for years. Not only do they lose what money they had invested, but also when they again attempt to purchase the option or the land rights, the price has increased dramatically.
AGING WATERSHED INFRASTRUCTURE
The National Watershed Coalition would like to publicly thank the Chairman for the yeoman work he did in leading the passage PL 106–472, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000. The issue of the current condition of improvements constructed on our landscape by all conservation programs, is of great concern. It has been estimated that from 1935 through 1980 the cumulative investment in the agricultural sector of the US economy was $19.1 billion in actual dollars. Those were years in which we invested the most in our rural infrastructure. That cumulative investment in real terms was about $43 billion. Slightly less than half of all conservation measures installed since 1935 should still be in place. The rapid growth phase of installing these practices ended about 1955. By then, depreciation began to outweigh new investment. The replacement value of conservation improvements on farms peaked in 1965 at $27.6 billion. In the period 1976 to 1980, depreciation of on farm measures averaged $677 million per year. New investments during that same period averaged only $447 million per year. If one assumes the $677 million to be the annual cost if maintaining existing productive capacity, which is not unreasonable, our current investments do not even attain a simple maintenance state. That same principle applies to the watershed infrastructure we have installed. That is why the Chairman's work on watershed rehabilitation is so important. We depend on the benefits produced by these watershed projects and conservation measures for our food and fiber. Just as with our homes and property, maintenance is critical and often delayed until costs skyrocket.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of the nearly 11,000 dams built with the small watershed programs assistance no longer meet current dam safety standards largely as a result of development, and need to be upgraded to current standards. We estimate that in the next ten years, $600 million will be needed to rehabilitate these installed works. Of that amount, $100 million would come from local project sponsors. NRCS conducted a more recent survey, and in just 22 states, about $540 million in structure rehabilitation needs were identified. Thanks to the Chairman, we now have the authorization to get on with the rehabilitation task. What is needed is, once again—the Federal share of the funds. If we don't start to pay attention to our rural infrastructure needs, the ultimate cost to society will only increase, and project benefits will be lost. This is a serious national issue. We have included some charts and graphs demonstrating this problem and the national needs, in the introductory material to this statement that was made available to the members of the Subcommittee. If we do our rehabilitation job as we should, and bring these older structures up to current health and safety standards, they will continue providing benefits far into the future.
WATERSHED PROGRAM FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
For many years USDA/NRCS had a very accurate and descriptive accounting system for appropriated funds that allowed the agency to report to Congress and the American people
on how their tax dollars were being spent and what was being accomplished. Over time that system has been changed. We believe it is because some who oppose project type programs, both in the various administrations and the Congress, wanted to reduce funding, and yet mask the published numbers to imply more was being spent than actually was. For example, the PL–534 and PL–566 programs are authorized by different acts and operating rules. For years some have tried to eliminate the PL–534 program or combine it with PL–566 in order to be ''more efficient.'' What has happened over time, is the appropriations for PL–534 have been eliminated as a line item, and there has been language in the appropriations bills that suggests PL–534 project funds be taken from the PL–566 account. The end result is that the Federal share of funds for both programs has been reduced. Another way to claim that more ''watershed conservation'' work is being done than actually is the case, is to suggest that Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) work is actually part of the ongoing watershed activity, which it is not. EWP work responds to natural disasters, requires supplemental appropriations for funding, and has its own separate legislative authority. EWP rules mandate that the program cannot provide any protection from natural disasters, but can only restore properties to their ''pre-disaster'' condition.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With watershed rehabilitation nearing reality, we can anticipate more ''budget games'' being played by those who oppose watershed conservation work. It would be very easy for appropriators to simply use the normal PL–566 appropriation, say some amount was intended for rehabilitation work, again resulting in reduced funding available for both the ongoing program and rehabilitation. The rehabilitation legislation did modify PL–566 after all. We suggest Congress reestablish the following watershed program accounts for program accountability.
Watershed Surveys and Planning (06)
Watershed Operations (08)
Watershed Rehabilitation (?)
Flood Prevention Operations (03)
Emergency Watershed Protection (16)
Accounts 1, 2, & 3 are authorized by PL–566. Account 4 is authorized by PL–534, and account 5 is authorized by PL–516 and PL–334. There are compelling reasons why this should be done. Some are:
Ensures emergency supplemental funding does not get combined with normal year appropriations to mask a reduced baseline of funding to ongoing project implementation.
Demonstrates to Congress that appropriations are utilized on intended projects.
Provides a higher standard of accountability for USDA/NRCS.
Demonstrates to Congress and the people that program accomplishments are attributable to the intended program.
Will demonstrate for all to see, Congress and the people, that funding of new projects is not done at the expense of on-going project implementation.
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RESEARCH
In all our conservation work, there is a research and development (R&D) component that is often overlooked or ignored. With watershed structure rehabilitation activities looming on the horizon, it is imperative this R&D component be addressed. In USDA, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) undertakes most of this research work. The Oklahoma ARS laboratories, particularly the one in Stillwater, have led the effort to examine rehabilitation problems. ARS has drafted a multi-laboratory research plan, with two of the three labs in Oklahoma, the other in Mississippi, which lays out the way to proceed. That need is currently estimated at $1.5 to 2.0 million annually in additional funding, and the NWC believes this estimate is far short of the true need. In addition to developing the technology to more effectively evaluate and rehabilitate existing flood control structures, this research would evaluate upstream and downstream changes to stream channel systems in cases of structure decommissioning, evaluate the water quality impact of stored sediment releases, and evaluate impacts of the loss of flood protection among other things. Research is also needed to develop and test new environmentally oriented farming techniques, systems, and marketing policies to assist family farmers meet resource conservation and farm income goals.
OTHER ISSUES CONGRESS SHOULD ADDRESS TO IMPROVE FARM POLICY
The 2002 farm bill should also address some other issues to make farm policy work better for farmers, ranchers, rural communities, public health and the environment. Farm programs can do more to actually help farmers and farm communities. Stewardship incentives can be shaped to support income, not just defray the cost of environmental measures, and can be offered to all kinds of farmers. Programs can help farmers make the transition to new, promising markets that reward environmental stewardship, to diversity their production, and to find new marketing opportunities to increase their share of the food dollar. Some examples are:
Provide stewardship payments to farmers and ranchers who reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, prevent soil erosion, adopt resource-friendly grazing systems, and manage manure more safely and effectively as a resource. Such programs should be structured to both achieve environmental benefits and support income.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Create incentives for farmers to enhance and preserve native grasslands, restore wetlands, stream buffers, and other sensitive lands.
Provide incentives to manage forestlands in a manner that protects the forest's ecological integrity, recreational opportunities, and productivity.
Increase the technical assistance needed to deliver programs and respond to farmer needs. This is absolutely critical. NRCS is desperately short of the technical disciplines needed to carry out their national responsibilities.
The work your Subcommittee is doing is extremely critical to the welfare of the United States as a nation. The NWC believes that soil and water conservation, indeed all resource conservation, is as important as national defense. It really is a vital component of national defense. We stand ready to assist your Subcommittee as it goes about this important work.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to present our National Watershed Coalition ideas. We also support those suggestions you received from the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) at your hearing in Washington, DC on June 6. Our organization focuses on the nation's watershed programs, but all the conservation programs should be complementary, and NACD's suggestions are important and on target. I would be happy to respond to any questions.
Statement of Richard Conner
The Nature Conservancy, America's largest conservation organization, appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on 2001 farm bill legislation. The Nature Conservancy views the many important programs under the jurisdiction of this committee as part of a larger mosaic in rural America—programs that help support economic development and the conservation of our precious natural resources. With me today is Jeff Eisenberg, the Senior Policy Advisor for Agriculture for the Conservancy. After statements from the panel are presented, Mr. Eisenberg will answer questions related to general farm bill and conservation policy. I will answer questions for the Conservancy related to the status and economics of grasslands in the country.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1.1 million individual members and over 1,900 corporate sponsors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 27 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 12 million acres in the 50 states and abroad, and has helped local partner organizations preserve millions of acres abroad. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,340 preserves—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound science, strong partnerships with farmers and ranchers and others, and tangible results at local places.
Currently, the Conservancy is working at approximately 150 sites around the country to implement conservation through community-based projects. Our plan is to increase this number to 500 sites within the next decade. Because much of the privately held land is used for agricultural production, we are naturally working ever more closely with crop and livestock producers. This work will only succeed if it is built on a foundation of fundamental trust with producers.
In the farm bill, the Conservancy is seeking funding for three programs: the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the proposed Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Our experience on the ground has shown these three conservation programs to have the greatest potential for meeting the needs of conservation and production agriculture. Other programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland
Protection Program, and a proposed Stewardship Incentive Program have merit as well.
Additionally, we believe a program to stimulate the formation of small businesses in rural America, including environmentally compatible businesses, is also worthy of the Committee's attention. Resource benefits supporting production agriculture, producer income, and the environment deserve the thoughtful support of the Committee in formulating long-term agriculture policy in the next farm bill.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP)
WRP is one of the best examples of a program that serves conservation and production agriculture interests. Wetlands are one of the more important natural features found on private lands. They maintain the land resource base by absorbing excess water flows, they provide important filtration functions for groundwater, rivers and streams, and they provide habitat for fish and wildlife.
These ecological benefits also provide direct support for production agriculture. The absorption function of wetlands mitigates the severity of flooding events thereby reducing the loss of valuable farmland. On needs only look at recent flooding events in the upper Mississippi watershed to gain an appreciation for the value of intact wetlands. The filtration function reduces non-point source runoff and helps producers avoid regulatory sanction. As sure as highways and bridges are important infrastructure for commercial vitality in this country, soil and water resources are indispensable infrastructure for agriculture vitality.
Because of these important benefits, the Nature Conservancy considers WRP to be the most important conservation program authorized by the Agriculture Committee. The case for expanding the program is strong. At one time, there were more than 220 million acres of wetlands in this country. This number has now been reduced to 110 million acres on private land and approximately 20 million acres on public land.
To date, the Wetland Reserve Program has restored 1 million of these acres. The demand for participation in the program has far outstripped the availability of funding by approximately a 4:1 ratio. Oklahoma and South Dakota are among the top 10 states in the country for producer participation in the program. A major restoration effort of wetlands is underway in Nebraska along the Missouri River. In Kansas, the program has doubled in activity during the last two years.
Why do producers enroll in WRP? There are a variety of reasons. Some producers simply love the land. They have worked all their lives and want to preserve its natural character. Some producers are in financial distress and need the cash infusion made available by the program. Other producers decide to retire flood-prone land and use WRP money to purchase more productive land. Some producers use the money to make additional capital investments in their operation or save the money for their retirement. Many producers generate additional income through the program by renting WRP land to hunting groups.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As indicated, the current program is very popular and much needed. The need for the program was further increased by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Army Corps of Engineers, which weakened protection for isolated wetlands on agricultural and other lands. For these many reasons, the Conservancy recommends authorizing the enrollment of 1.25 million new acres through the structure of the existing program.
B. GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
The Nature Conservancy has been working hand in hand with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to create a program that protects grasslands. The Grassland Reserve Program, H.R. 1689, was introduced by Congressmen Schaffer and Thompson on May 2, 2001. The bill protects grasslands through permanent and thirty-year easements. It imposes no regulation on grazing. The principal prohibition in the bill is against breaking the soil for crops or any other purpose. The bill also allows private entities, such as ranching land trusts, to hold easements under the program,.
You might be asking yourself what common interest would lead these two disparate organizations to actively cooperate to promote an important piece of Federal legislation. The answer is that both share a strong commitment to keeping working landscapes intact. The Conservancy understands that unless there is economically viable activity in rural America, the land could be lost to less desirable uses such as development. The Nature Conservancy's number one conservation goal in the west is to keep large grass landscapes intact. The Cattlemen want to keep their ranchers on the ground. Our interests in this matter are thus very much in alignment.
I am here testifying before you today primarily because of a report me and my colleagues, Andrew Seidl, of Colorado State University, Larry VanTassell of the University of Idaho and Neal Wilkins also of Texas A&M conducted at the request of The Nature Conservancy, The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Ducks Unlimited. The study is entitled ''United States Grasslands and Related Resources: An Economic and Biological Trends Assessment''. The organizations requested the study in order to document what has been happening to grasslands throughout the country and why. An executive summary of the study's conclusions is attached to this testimony. The study itself will be made available to your various offices and committee staff next week.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The study documents that the pre-European settlement coverage of grasslands in the contiguous 48 states was approximately 923 million acres, about half of the total land. Most of this potential grassland (883 million acres) was west of the Mississippi River and about 582 million acres of it was on land that is now privately owned. By 1997, USDA reported only 402 million acres of rangeland in the 22 states west of the Mississippi River, excluding Federal lands.
Losses of grasslands have been greatest in the Tall Grass Prairies and Savannas because these lands were better suited for crop production. Thus, states like Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana have virtually lost all of their potential grasslands. However, conversions to cropping and other land uses are not confined to just the Tall grass areas, Mixed and Short Grass Prairies have also been lost. For example, Oklahoma had only about 14 million acres of rangeland in 1997 compared to its 38 million acres of potential grasslands. Similar comparisons for Kansas (16 remaining from 47 million); Nebraska (23 left from 44 million); South Dakota (22 remaining from 46 million) and North Dakota (11 left from 37 million) show similar or even greater losses.
Grasslands provide both ecological and economic benefits to local residents and society in general. The importance of grasslands lies not only in the immense area they cover, but also in the diversity of benefits they produce.
The ecological services provided by grasslands include nutrient cycling and storage of substantial amounts of atmospheric carbon. In general, these ecological functions can be sustained under moderate to light grazing. However, following cultivation grassland soils are likely to lose up to 50 percent of their original carbon within the first 40 to 50 years.
Grasslands are also key to an efficient hydrologic cycle. The quality and quantity of water runoff and infiltration is dependent upon the quality of ground cover. Converting grasslands to other uses, like cropping, results in increased soil erosion and decreased water quality through increases in sedimentation, dissolved solids, nutrients, and pesticides.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Native grasslands and rangelands directly support the livestock industry. Over 86 percent of the breeding sheep in the United States are located west of the Mississippi River along with numerous domestic goats and horses whose main feed source is derived from grasslands. The annual inventory of cows that have calved in states west of the Mississippi River have averaged over 25 million head this past decade. Grasslands make up over 95 percent of the deeded acreage it takes to maintain beef cattle in the Great Plains and Western United States.
Grasslands also support recreational based activities. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 27 million people in the states west of the Mississippi River participated in fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation in 1996. Expenditures related to these activities exceeded $37 billion.
The benefits of open space and scenic amenities afforded by private grasslands are increasingly recognized. Land prices bordering open space have been found to be seven to thirty-two percent higher than those not bordering open space. Large working farms and ranches also make fewer demands on community services than the rural residential development that often replaces them.
Unfortunately, the biotic diversity of North American grasslands is probably the most altered by human impact of any of the continent's terrestrial ecosystems. The ecological status of many existing grassland systems are heavily influenced at the local level by combinations of habitat fragmentation, undesirable habitat changes due to fire exclusion, declining range conditions due to improper grazing management, and loss of habitat values due to the spread of invasive and non-native plants. Further complications arise from demographic trends related to changes in land ownership. As a result, many species endemic to grasslands have declined substantially in the recent past.
Moreover, grassland losses continue to occur. Historically, the greatest threat to grasslands in the United States was the plow. Conversion of grass to cropland remains an important threat today largely as a result of Federal policy providing perverse incentives to convert grass. Government programs such as loan deficiency payments, subsidized crop insurance and disaster relief, converting land to, or keeping land in, crops can act as powerful incentives to convert grass to cropland. This especially true for land that is marginally suited for cropping.
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other land use conversions, population and income driven, have become more important sources of grassland losses in recent times. Many of the remaining grasslands are located in areas with high natural amenities. Low direct economic incentives to an aging population of grassland owners, combined with the longest economic boom in United States history, advances in telecommunications and other socioeconomic changes, contribute pressure to convert grasslands into large lot, rural or x-urban homesites.
Between 1990 and 2000, the market price of agricultural land increased 66 percent in the western United States, indicating a significant increase in the demand for land. Most of this demand originated from non-agricultural interests as prices notably exceeded the productive value of the land. For example, in many parts of Texas, wildlife based enterprises, primarily lease-hunting, are generating more net income per acre of rangeland than livestock production. Fortunately, ranchers in these areas have learned to manage both their livestock and wildlife enterprises so that they are largely complementary. This kind of complementary land use activity may offer one of the best hopes for providing the economic viability necessary to sustain the ranching industry in many other parts of the United States in the future. There is evidence that wildlife-based land uses are becoming more important in several other states. For example wildlife hunting is becoming much more economically important in North and South Dakota and is already impacting land tenure and land use decisions.
Unless abated, these income and population based demands will not only continue to remove grasslands from their historical uses, but will continue to fragment the grasslands that remain to the point that they may not be of sufficient size to support their natural biodiversity. Additionally, ranchers need large blocks of land to form ranches of the right size to run economic operations.
The Nature Conservancy recommends enactment of H.R. 1689 with an initial enrollment of five million acres. A grassland protection program should provide an option for producers to sell a permanent easement to the government. Permanent easements are overwhelmingly the choice of producers who enroll in the WRP, and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois. Ranchers in California have submitted requests for 380,000 acres of permanent easements to the California Rangeland Trust.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On a recent tour of ranchland in eastern Montana, a fourth generation rancher was asked whether he would prefer a term, rather than permanent, easement for his land to ensure that his children would retain the option to dispose of the land as they saw fit. He said he would want the permanent easement in place.
Producers love the land from which they earn a living and a significant number want to preserve for future generations the object of their life-long effort. The Nature Conservancy urges the Committee to respect the demonstrated wishes of a significant portion of the producer community and make a permanent easement option available under both the Grassland and Wetland Reserve Programs. Producers who oppose permanent protection are under no obligation to sell such an easement to the government. farm bill conservation programs are voluntary.
C. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP)
CRP and its constituent parts, continuous sign-up and the enhanced program, provide significant wildlife, water quality, and income benefits to producers and the public. CRP provides the security of a stream of income for the life of a contract, which will be available regardless of what happens with commodity prices. The Conservancy particularly favors the enhanced and continuous sign-up components of CRP because of the environmental benefits delivered by protecting riparian zones.
The Conservancy supports making CRP more economically accessible to producers while also maintaining environmental benefits. One example of such an accommodation would be to allow the use of CRP land to produce seeds for native grasses. Additionally, we support haying and grazing of CRP acres provided appropriate measures are taken to protect rivers and streams and haying occurs after the nesting season for birds. Finally, the contract dollar cap for individual participants should be raised to make possible the realization of conservation benefits on large landscapes.
The Nature Conservancy recommends increasing to 45 million the acres for enrollment in CRP.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
D. OTHER CONSERVATION ISSUES
EQIP is an important source of cost-share dollars to help producers abate non-point source runoff. The Nature Conservancy understands that many producer groups want to ensure that all their members have a chance to enroll in the program regardless of whether they reside in a conservation priority area. We share the view that the program should be simplified.
A proposal the Conservancy has previously shared with the committee would allocate dollars to the various states on the basis of producer demand, rather than a national mandate as is currently the case with conservation priority areas. Incentives could be introduced in areas that have special resource concerns, principally clean water, to promote producer response to the concern. The proposal is an effort to reasonably balance producer frustration with limited eligibility to participate in the program with the need to ensure that some conservation benefits are actually being delivered with program dollars.
We appreciate the support the Committee has shown for agriculture conservation through the years, and this opportunity to present testimony written statement to you. The Conservancy looks forward to working with you on these important issues.
Statement of Eddie Bowman
Mr. Chairman and committee members, it is a privilege for me, as President of the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, to discuss our views on conservation with you this morning. My name is Eddie Bowman and I have the pleasure of producing wheat and beef cattle in North Central Oklahoma near Billings. Some of the most fertile and productive soil in the Southern Great Plains is in this area of our great state, and unfortunately, some of the most conservationally sensitive also. Few places exhibit the obvious benefits and needed continuation of sound and effective voluntary conservation programs more.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wheat and grain producers in Oklahoma have made tremendous strides, often at personal cost, to improve not only the environmental impact of our blessed earth, but its productivity and longevity through conservation in the past twenty years. The Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association and its members are fully committed to the improvement of out nations rich land and environment through the continuation of objective, equitable, voluntary, incentive based flexible conservation programs that have allowed agriculture to make these impressive gains.
With that said, OWGA realized the importance of the conservation title in the forth coming farm bill, but we remain completely committed to seeing the goals and financial objectives of the commodity title realized as a first and foremost priority. OWGA views conversation as a necessary compliment to insure that we maintain and improve the productivity of the land, the health of the environment and the quality of our nations food supply. Government should continue to provide incentive based assistance to conservation, but not seek to replace food production as the primary objective of our Nation's agricultural lands.
OWGA supports the locally led conservation efforts that maximize environmental benefit through targeted management of our land resources. We believe the current CRP enrollment cap of 36.4 million acres nationally is adequate and should not be raised. We recommend that the Environmental Benefits Index criteria have a greater emphasis on wind and water erosion with the intention of refocusing CRP to use on our marginal soils and most fragile lands. We recognize the tremendous positive impact that the CRP program has made in Oklahoma and support its broad whole farm enrollment features, but only in the most sensitive scenarios were the revised EBI would warrant broad program enrollment. Whole farm continuous enrollment should only be used to assist producers with addressing site-specific problems that cannot be addressed in a cost effective manner on a limited acreage basis.
In similar fashion, we see the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or a similar program as a means to address sight specific conservation needs. We also believe that the EQIP program should be more equitable and should be amended to allow commodity producers to better utilize the program. Either the priority area process should be revised, or some of the focus should shift from places to practices, allowing the program to be flexible to specific concerns and specific areas. A program similar to that of the previous Great Plains Conservation Program could work wonderfully in cooperation or conjunction with a more locally focused and guided program that would allow property owners to address such situations as Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations in certain areas through best management practices.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to the management of wetlands, OWGA believes that, as with the CRP program, acreage caps on existing wetlands programs should not be expanded. Further more, OWGA supports additional flexibility and greater equality on wetland programs and that regulations be reflective of a clear and uniform mission or outcome for the programs.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, agriculture faces many challenges, as you are all well aware. The Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association is sincerely appreciative of the opportunity to share our views with those present today on the successes and future needs of conservation in agriculture. Our association believes that the successful conservation practices that have been developed and utilized in the past will be further improved upon in the future. OWGA also realizes that cost effective productivity and longevity of our land will not be maintained without a successful complimentary and supportive conservation title in the next farm bill. A title that will function effectively and efficiently with improved commodity programs. With commodity and conservation programs working together, the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association sees further commodity productivity, as well as, continued improvement in the condition of our land, air, water, and wildlife resources for all to enjoy. Thank You.
Statement of the National Governors Association
This testimony is respectfully submitted on behalf of the National Governors Association (NGA) for inclusion as part of the record of the June 9, 2001 hearing before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research on the subject of conservation issues to be addressed in the 2002 farm bill.
The National Governors Association was formed in 1908 as a direct result of the National Conservation Conference of our Nation's Governors convened by President Theodore Roosevelt. President Roosevelt identified the need for a national policy for stewardship of our natural resources, and understood the importance the Governors played in implementing that strategy. Since then, NGA has continued to promote the need for genuine stewardship and conservation of our Nation's resources.
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The two highest priorities for this farm bill must be the pursuit of a healthy, prosperous farm economy and protection of our Nation's natural resources. Farm support programs should foster a rural America that furthers our Nation's conservation goals and protects family farmers and ranchers.
Conservation Programs. The environmentally oriented conservation programs operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been of significant value to farmers, rural communities, wildlife, and the environment. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) continues to provide farmers with an alternative to production on environmentally sensitive lands. NGA wholeheartedly supports CRP, and believes the benefits justify continued funding at least at current levels. Also, by enabling States to supplement Federal CRP dollars, through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, States have been able to protect distinctive characteristics and unique lands.
Unfortunately, many States are still waiting for approval of enhancement programs they have submitted to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Congress must work to streamline the approval process for State-submitted enhancement programs. These are extremely valuable and effective tools used to combat urban sprawl and protect sensitive areas and need to be expedited by the Secretary of Agriculture. Every minute that these programs are not approved, soil is lost, water quality continues to degrade, and critical environmental areas remain unprotected.
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is another important conservation program. It ensures that wetlands will be restored or protected from development or agricultural production through perpetual or 30-year easements. Perpetual easements are by far the most popular choice among landowners with 78 percent of agreements falling in this category. In all cases, landowners retain title of the land and control access and use in accordance with easement provisions. This popular and important program can and should be continued in the next farm bill.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Programs like these provide significant value to our nation by protecting environmentally sensitive lands and preserving open space. However, there are still important steps that need to be taken.
Working Lands Conservation. Our next national challenge in conservation and environmental policy is improving conservation practices on lands producing food, fiber, and other agricultural commodities. We need to provide greater incentives for landowners to employ best conservation practices on all of their lands—including working lands.
Farmers, by the nature of their work, are close to the land and deserve their reputation as the ''first conservationists.'' However, with prices low and many family farms at a financial precipice, the government must help farmers implement practices that require funds and technical assistance. The need to ensure genuine stewardship of the Nation's natural resources poses one of the most significant challenges and opportunities facing agriculture today. We must work in partnership with private landowners to preserve and protect our national assets for future generations, while maximizing their lands' productivity today.
New policy must build a national understanding of the importance of private lands conservation. The general public benefits when landowners employ good conservation practices. These ''conservation commodities'' include improved air and water quality for downstream communities, enhanced wildlife habitat for fishers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts, and preserved rural landscapes. Resource stewardship is the responsibility of all, and State and Federal programs must help landowners by spreading the costs of conservation to all who benefit. Environmental benefits are valuable, and farmers should be compensated for producing these valuable commodities the same way they are paid to produce fruits, vegetables, grains, trees, and livestock.
State-Federal Partnerships. The 1996 farm bill required development of the State Technical Committee, which is responsible for providing recommendations to USDA on conservation programs. This committee consists of representatives from State and Federal natural resource agencies and agricultural and environmental organizations. We believe the committee has improved coordination among local, State, and Federal programs, including USDA programs. The State Technical Committees should be continued, while at the same time finding new ways to utilize their technical expertise to address a State's specific areas of need.
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The diverse nature of America's agricultural lands makes a one-size-fits-all approach to conservation impractical. A conservation program should be developed that allows Governors—through partnerships with USDA and State governments—to target priority lands within their State. Under such a program, Governors would be allowed to set priorities that address the unique issues and characteristics of a region that must be considered if a landowner is to be sufficiently empowered to produce the most environmental benefits, while continuing to utilize his or her assets.
The strengthening of State-Federal partnerships is critical to implementing efficient and effective conservation programs. As President Roosevelt realized almost one hundred years ago, the Governors are the key to effectively implementing a national conservation program. States are uniquely situated to provide the leadership needed to implement a simple, flexible conservation strategy that enables farmers and ranchers to develop a holistic farm resource management plan. The Governors believe we must strengthen the States' role in the planning for—and allocation of—Federal resources conservation dollars. States are responsible for achieving a wide variety of environmental protection goals, yet State officials are often not included in decisions affecting their State's economies and environment. Congress must afford States greater flexibility and an increased role in the allocation of Federal monies funding to accommodate State priorities.
This only can be done by adequately investing in conservation programs. Current funding levels for conservation programs do not come close to addressing our environmental needs. While the current farm economy makes it difficult to expect a producer to invest scarce resources in non-revenue generating projects, increased Federal conservation dollars will help both the environmental needs of our nation and the economic needs of our farmers.
Inadequate funding for Federal conservation programs has prevented thousands of farmers and ranchers from receiving technical and financial assistance so that they might address pressing environmental challenges. During every CRP enrollment period, applications to enroll acres have exceeded those that USDA can accept by millions of acres. For every landowner who has sold a conservation easement, another six are waiting for the same opportunity. In addition, more than 2,700 landowners have offered to enroll more than 560,000 acres of wetlands into the Wetlands Reserve Program, but have not been accepted. Three-out-of-four farmers and ranchers seeking Federal assistance to restore lost wetlands are rejected due to inadequate funding or program caps. Yet, many of the lost wetlands being offered by farmers and ranchers are in places where scientists have concluded wetlands restoration is among the most cost-effective solutions to many environmental problems.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Governors recognize that Congress must set priorities and ponder return on investment. Increasing funding for conservation programs will improve the farm economy and protect our Nation's natural resources while providing the greatest return on the investment.
Confined Animal Feeding Operations
The National Governors Association also is concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations. NGA is a strong proponent of controlling run-off from non-point sources to improve water quality. While we believe that the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program has an important role to play, several of the changes to the current regulation proposed by EPA could potentially have a significant financial impact on States and operators of these facilities.
Many States already have nutrient management and permitting programs to address animal feeding operations. The current authority for States to develop these programs should not be preempted, nor should the Federal Government add conflicting requirements to State programs. A State functionally equivalent program, which allows a State to design a program that is best suited to its water quality needs, must be recognized as an appropriate alternative to the Federal NPDES permit program.
CAFO/AFO operations could benefit from a Governor's ability to target conservation money by providing the incentives and means to attain and maintain Federal water quality standards. Farmers and ranchers who participate in such voluntary programs should be entitled to the certainty that if they implement measures consistent with the State program, they will be protected from program revisions or additional costly requirements for a reasonable period.
Again, with an increased Federal-State partnership, we can make great strides toward improving our Nation's environment, while improving the farm economy. Maintaining the current Federal conservation programs, and strengthening Federal-State partnerships that enable States to enhance and expand conservation efforts, will contribute greatly to the pursuit of our national conservation goals, support farm income, and expand rural economies. Agriculture is a vital component of the economies of many of our States, and we are eager to be more active partners in agriculture policy, both in designing strategies and in implementing programs.
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments for the record.
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(AGRICULTURAL CREDIT)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives: Thune, Osborne, Putnam, Kennedy, Hilliard, Peterson, and Clayton.
Staff present: Ryan Weston, subcommittee staff director; Dave Ebersole, Callista Gingrich, chief clerk; Susanna Love, Anne Simmons, and Russell Middleton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. LUCAS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research will now come to order.
Good afternoon. The subcommittee meets today to continue its responsibilities developing a record for the coming farm bill debate. This afternoon we will hear testimony from witnesses who are involved on a daily basis—and I mean daily basis—delivering credit services to our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know my colleagues and I are interested in current and future agricultural credit conditions. However, to the extent any of our witnesses have suggestions for improving the agricultural credit statutes under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, we also encourage you to let us know what needs the attention.
Today, while it is evident that the agricultural sector is suffering, those problems have not yet necessarily reached the lending community. The state of our agricultural lending institutions is generally sound, which, by the way, is a very good thing. I also understand that low commodity prices for a number of years, coupled with high input costs over the last several months, make it difficult for producers and their lenders around the country may make it difficult to put those viable loans together for spring planting.
Since prices of commodities and inputs do not appear to be moving our way, and by that, I mean, from agriculture's perspective, I can only assume that this fall and next spring will be even more difficult. I am especially interested in the outlook our witnesses can give us on what they believe that we should expect in the next 10 to 12 months from now. If poor conditions persist, we inevitably will see problems in our agricultural banks and cooperative lenders.
All of us in agriculture know that Federal assistance the last few years has kept farmers afloat and lenders able to stay with most of their customers through another cycle. But we also understand that this assistance, in the long term, probably is not sustainable and some might debate the healthy nature of it also. Congress must provide a safety net that is predictable. It must be a long-term assurance that the Federal Government will be there when the down times come to agriculture.
Today, we will hear from the folks who are on the front line with the agricultural producers every day. They can give us valuable insight into the state of the agricultural economy, and I look forward to your testimony.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And with that, I see our panel is at the table. I would like to make those introductions. Ms. Carolyn B. Cooksie, Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs, Farm Service Agency, USDA, Mr. Andy Lowrey, president and chief executive officer, AgFirst FCB, Columbia, South Carolina, representing the Farm Credit Council; Mr. Miles Robinson, College of Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Sciences, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama; Mr. Dale Leighty, president, First National Bank of Las Animas, Las Animas, Colorado, representing the Independent Community Bankers of America; Mr. Terry Hague, chief executive officer, Farmers Exchange Bank, Cherokee, Oklahoma, representing the American Bankers Association; Mr. Henry D. Edelman, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Washington, DC.
And with that, I would note to my panel that we have just come through a very long and teeth-grinding mark-up in the full committee on a matter of great importance, and don't be surprised if we have Members drifting in as they recover from that joyful experience. With that, Ms. Cooksie, you may begin when ready, please.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN B. COOKSIE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FARM LOAN PROGRAMS, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. COOKSIE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and, members of the committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to review the status of the FSA farm loan portfolio, discuss the impact of certain provisions of the 1996 farm bill, and point out some issues of concern for the future.
FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans to farmers who are unable to obtain private commercial credit. The goal of the farm loan program is to assist eligible individuals and families through outreach, technical assistance, and supervised credit so that they can become successful farmers and ranchers. Regardless of the type of loan, FSA's financial assistance provides a safety net for borrowers who have reasonable prospects for economic viability in agriculture.
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by reviewing the present status of the FSA loan portfolio. I am pleased to report that the FSA farm loan portfolio is showing its best performance in many years. All programs are performing well. Direct loan delinquency is the lowest in over 20 years at 12.3 percent, the direct loan loss rate is the lowest since 1987, and we have made progress in reducing the number of delinquent million dollar-plus direct loan accounts, from 748 at the end of fiscal year 1995 to only 180 at the end of 2000.
In addition, inventory property numbers are the lowest since 1980. The guaranteed loan portfolio is also performing well. Delinquency is at an all-time low of 1.83 percent, and dollar losses have remained low despite continuing growth of the portfolio. In fiscal year 2000, losses paid were only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the principal outstanding.
Mr. Chairman, this is particularly noteworthy because, at the same time, FSA loan volume has increased significantly, more than 65 percent in recent years. In fiscal year 2001, demand for FSA's farm loan assistance remains strong. The lending season is currently at its busiest and most critical time, and FSA is working hard to rapidly process the thousands of applications coming into the county offices.
I believe there is no single factor, but a combination of different factors, which led to these achievements. First, the 1996 farm bill instituted provisions which create strong incentives for FSA borrowers to repay their loans. The 1996 farm bill included provisions which instituted prohibitions on further FSA loan assistance to borrowers who are delinquent, who have received debt forgiveness and a one-time $300,000 limit on debt forgiveness. These limitations have caused FSA borrowers to more carefully consider the consequences of failure to repay their FSA loans.
Provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act have also been beneficial. The possibility of offset of FSA program payments and Federal income tax refunds, and bars on participation in other Federal credit programs provide additional incentives for borrowers to repay their FSA loans.
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, borrowers cannot pay if they do not have money to make payments. So the significant amount of the Government farm payments over the past few years is also a major factor in portfolio performance.
Also, I cannot overstate the importance of the tremendous amount of hard work by FSA field staff in implementing the numerous program changes and in working to help borrowers avoid or to resolve delinquencies. FSA employees have logged many long, hard hours working to assist borrowers. This is a difficult, often frustrating task. Borrowers are under stress. There are no easy solutions, and sometimes the answer is not the one the farmer wants to hear. It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, the increase in FSA loan volume and reduction of delinquencies have been achieved with no increase in farm loan staffing levels.
Faced with a heavy workload and limited staff, we have developed ways to decrease the paperwork burden for both staff and program customers. Both guaranteed and direct loan programs now have abbreviated applications for loans of less than $50,000. In February of 1999, we published regulations which simplified and streamlined the loan guarantee process. Within the next few months, we plan to publish final regulations to dramatically streamline and simplify the emergency loan program for both farmers and FSA staff.
We have also undertaken a major initiative to streamline all program regulations. When this project is complete, 1,200 pages of text will be deleted and the number of required forms reduced by almost 30 percent.
Now, to the future. Any discussion of the future of agriculture must include beginning farmers since they are the future of farming. There is keen interest in this issue, and rightfully so. FSA is not able to loan all the funds the law required to be targeted to beginning farmers. This should come as no surprise given the current state of the farm economy. When even established farmers are struggling financially, it is extremely difficult for someone with modest financial resources to get started in farming, and it often takes much more than a low-interest FSA loan for a beginning farmer to be successful.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you consider a new farm bill, there are two areas of the 1996 farm bill that I would like to bring to your attention. One imposes a lifetime ban from FSA loans for anyone who has an FSA farm loan debt forgiven. Certainly, there must be limitations to avoid program abuses, such as the revolving door situation.
However, you may wish to consider whether a different approach is possible, one that will prevent the abuse targeted by the 1996 change, but allow farmers who have had FSA farm loan debt forgiven to have another opportunity to become eligible for FSA loans in the future.
The second provision from the 1996 farm bill that I mention is operating term limits. A limitation on the length of time a person may receive FSA farm operating loans was imposed. It is possible that a farmer reaching the term limit under economic conditions like those today may have done everything right and still be unable to get private sector financing. The committee may wish to review this provision further.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to alert the committee to a few other issues that may warrant attention as the farm bill debate develops. The first is the requirement that FSA accept an applicant's projected repayment ability to make an emergency loan if the available collateral is not adequate to secure the loan. The result is FSA is making EM loans without adequate tangible collateral. This marks a return to past policies which resulted in multi-billion dollar losses.
Secondly, the issue of the shared-appreciation agreement is one that I am sure some of the committee members are familiar with. These agreements were entered into as a part of the process of writing down or writing off debts under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1987. A significant number of these agreements are now coming due. Under the current economic conditions, many farmers may not be able to pay the amount due under this agreement. FSA has taken extensive administrative actions to mitigate the impact. However, even with deferral of payments and development of long-term repayment schedules, some farmers will not be able to keep the agreement and will face liquidation. Any additional relaxation of the requirements of these agreements will require legislation.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, Mr. Chairman, there is another situation I want to bring to the committee's attention as we help borrowers deal with financial problems. One action that FSA has taken to help farmers through tough times is the deferral of a loan installment to the end of the loan. This is an action that is taken primarily to help borrowers through weather-related cash shortfalls. As of March 31 of this year, 15,862 borrowers had these deferrals on one or more loans on their accounts. Continued prices at current levels will mean that many of these borrowers may not be able to repay the remaining balance when the loans mature. Current plans are to utilize the exiting loan serving authorities in the regulations to address these situations. However, if economic conditions don't improve, some of these farmers could face liquidation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the loan programs have come a long way since 1987, but success is a journey, not a destination, and we will still have a long, challenging trip ahead. We look forward to working with the committee as you wrestle with the issues I have raised today, and other complex farm lending issues as well. This concludes my statement and I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooksie appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. And to note for the members of the committee, we have a series of one 15-minute vote and two 5 minute votes. I believe the thing to do is to proceed with Mr. Lowrey's testimony and at about 5 minutes until the end of the vote, then we will suspend the hearing, go cast our set of votes and come back. Because this testimony is just too important not to participate in. Mr. Lowrey.
STATEMENT OF F.A. LOWREY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AGFIRST FARM CREDIT BANK, COLUMBIA, SC, REPRESENTING THE FARM CREDIT COUNCIL
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LOWREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, members of the committee. I am Andy Lowrey, President and CEO of AgFirst Farm Credit Bank. Through our 24 far credit associations, we provide 10.6 billion in loans to more than 79,000 producers and rural home owners in 15 mid-Atlantic and southeastern States and Puerto Rico. 69,000 of those loans, or 88 percent of our loans, are less than 100,000 in size. I would like to provide you with an update on Farm Credit's mission and our success in achieving it.
But, first, a short review of agricultural and credit conditions in our territory. Our area is blessed with a high degree of crop and livestock diversification. However, adverse weather, low prices, and increasing cost, especially for fuel, have created stress in portions of our portfolio. Credit quality remains high, but indications are that many crop producers are facing challenges. While conditions in the poultry and the livestock sector are more favorable, the dairy industry is recovering from low prices in 2000. Farm Credit remains steadfast in its resolve to do all we can to help them.
Our mission for 85 years is to help ensure the health and economic well-being of American agriculture by providing sound, adequate, and constructive credit. We are meeting these expectations by providing a real and meaningful economic benefit to our cooperative members, as evidenced by our 33-percent market share in our 15-State area, and loan volume growth that increased by more 9 percent last year. We have seen our loan volume grow by more than 24 percent over the past 5 years.
One story of the AgFirst district that we don't talk enough about is our patronage. We believe our patrons, our member/borrower owners, should share in the success of their cooperative. In April of this year, we returned value to our stockholder customers by providing over $172 million in patronage refunds.
For the past 12 years, associations in the AgFirst family have returned value to their member borrowers by paying such refunds, distributing more than $1.4 billion back to our customers during that period. That is an average of almost 25 cents of every dollar of interest paid. This money flows back to the local communities so that rural America can benefit. It also helps the farmers we serve cover operating and living expenses. We encourage Members of Congress to ask patrons who do business with our AgFirst associations about the value they are receiving from being part of our cooperative.
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the Farm Credit System, we serve all customers, both large and small. While it is well-known that the Farm Service Agency is the lender of last resort, Farm Credit works with FSA through its guarantee program to help both young and disadvantaged, as well as seasoned farmers, who may have difficult times. We actively participate in the Preferred Lender Program and it has proven to be highly successful. We understand the cyclical nature of agriculture.
Overall, Farm Credit's financial performance remains very strong. That is due to liquidity created through several different Federal Government actions to supplement producers' incomes. In areas of high concentration of program crops, we can readily see the positive impact of Federal assistance. This committee has been farsighted in provisions of economic assistance to rural America and we thank you for that support. We expect, however, that additional Government assistance will be, again, necessary in 2001 and beyond.
Despite Farm Credit's financial strength, we see challenges. In a recent survey of Farm Credit lenders, 55 percent expect some increase in troubled loans in the coming year. In addition, we note financial difficulties in farm-related businesses and co-ops, in particular, input suppliers.
To meet the needs of producers, U.S. agricultural credit markets have changed dramatically in the past decade. In addition to expanding the authorities of commercial banks, Congress awarded them with a substantial access to funds from other GSEs. However, Farm Credit's authorities have remained unchanged. Farm Credit's charter needs updating. It changed materially in 1971, but has not changed significantly since, so our authorities have become outdated.
We support the need for vigorous competition between Farm Credit, commercial banks, and other lenders. In short, pricing is competitive, service is better, because Farm Credit ensures competition in agricultural and rural credit markets. Farmers need solid sources of credit that will be around to help them not just today, but well into the future.
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe the information that I have provided you indicates that Farm Credit is delivering and providing the services that Congress intended we provide when you established us back in 1916. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to share our views and we look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowrey appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Lowrey. And with that, the Chair asks the indulgence of the panel that we stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair, hopefully for no more than 30 minutes to accomplish our responsibilities of casting votes on your behalf on the floor.
[Recess]
Mr. LUCAS. The subcommittee will now reconvene. And, Mr. Leighty, when you are ready, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DALE LEIGHTY, PRESIDENT, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAS ANIMAS, LAS ANIMAS, CO, REPRESENTING THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY BANKERS OF AMERICA
Mr. LEIGHTY. Mr. Chairman, I am Dale Leighty, the chairman of the ICBA's Ag-Rural America Committee and also President of the First National Bank of Las Animas, Colorado. Thanks for holding this important hearing.
ICBA appreciates Congressional efforts in passing a fourth consecutive farm aid package. We have supported these farm aid packages to keep farmers and business until the agricultural economy improves. Unfortunately, farmers face the triple whammy of despairingly low prices, sharply rising energy and input costs, and an unlevel playing field in the world trade market. So we do urge the committee to pass a sizable economic assistance package for farmers this year, and a farm bill that provides farmers and bankers with more predictability, higher income payments when prices fall, and one that works hand in hand with an aggressive U.S. trade policy.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our five areas of recommendation to Congress are, number 1, quickly adopt a new farm aid package to offset extremely low prices. Number 2, pass a farm bill with counter-cyclical income mechanisms. Farmers and bankers need more predictability because it enables us all to make timely business and financing decisions. It gives us a better grasp earlier of cash-flow statements. We need to make 3- to 5-year projections based on income levels sufficient to repay debts and family living needs.
Number 3, provide full funding and new programs for USDA-guaranteed loans. In recent years, Congress had to pass supplemental spending bills to provide money for guaranteed loans while farmers were anxiously trying to get into the field.
Our recommendations include, provide permanent back-up contingency funding; permanently eliminate the 15-year limit on eligibility; provide some flexibility to increase the loan size limit; enhance Aggie Bonds; and enact authority for a blanket or a single assignment form.
Number 4 is to complement domestic farm programs with an aggressive U.S. trade policy. Quickly pass trade promotion authority and exempt agriculture from unilateral economic trade sanctions. The U.S. is currently only part to two of the 130 free trade agreements.
Number 5, diversify rural America without undermining the private sector. The more diversified our rural economies are, the more viable they can be in the long run. We need to diversify our rural economies, but do so in ways that do not undermine the private sector, otherwise, we shoot ourselves in the foot.
Two actions Congress should pursue would be to increase deposit insurance coverage and index it to inflation, and to increase funding for the Business and Industry Loan Program. Many rural banks are having difficulty growing their core deposit base, which can make it harder to meet local funding needs. This could be addressed by increasing deposit insurance coverage and indexing it to inflation. Please understand, this would help your rural constituents and help agricultural banks in your rural communities. It is very much a farm and rural policy issue. Deposit insurance hasn't been increased since 1980, and its value has been eroded in half. It is time to do something. Banks are willing to pay for the premiums for the increased coverage.
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Money leaving rural communities cannot be reinvested, which only exacerbates the cycle of less investment opportunity in rural towns and more population flight. New funding sources must then be found by community banks to make up for this loss of depositors and deposits.
Increased funding for USDA's B&I program—many banks cannot use the program because it always runs out of funding authority. Last year, almost $1 billion in guaranteed loans and 376 projects went unfunded. Providing more funds would be a very cost-efficient way to immediately address the rural development title of the farm bill.
Finally, please oppose expansion of Farm Credit System. We oppose legislation that undermines the private sector and this includes allowing encroachment by Government-sponsored enterprises into activities that are already being handled adequately by commercial banks. FCS now wants new expanded powers to lend to value-added agricultural business, a term they have not defined. FCS has had many regulatory and legislative enhancements in recent years, net profits of over $1 billion annually for over a decade, and, yet, numerous questions have been raised about FCS not using USDA's loan programs to serve beginning, small, and lower-income farmers. More accountability is needed.
FCS was protected from failure with bailout bills in the 1980's, while hundreds of community banks were allowed to fail. We object to FCS being given new authority simply to take away loans already being made by private sector lenders. This approach does not expand the economic base of rural America or bring in new businesses. FCS did not describe their proposal, nor did they define its scope. FCS did not suggest ways they would be willing to work cooperatively with local lenders and local communities to further rural development.
If FCS truly wants competition, they should proposing ways to make the congressionally authorized OFI Program workable and they should pay the same taxes as commercial banks on any new lending activities.
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are happy to discuss with the system and others ways we can all work together and we invite such opportunities. But we do not support allowing multi-billion dollar FCS lenders to undermine small community banks and their local markets. We would like to actually see the specific legislative proposals of both FCS and Farmer Mac and the role these proposals envision for community banks.
In summary, a guiding principle of new farm policy should be to not undermine those in the private sector who do such a great job serving rural America. We look forward to working with you in developing a new and better farm bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leighty appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Robinson.
STATEMENT OF MILES ROBINSON, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND NATURAL SCIENCES, TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, TUSKEGEE, AL
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, and, members of the committee, I am happy to be a part of this activity today as far as providing testimony to this Subcommittee on Conversation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research on behalf of Tuskegee University Small Farm Rural Economic Development Center and the family of 1890 Land Grant Institutions and Community Based Organizations—thank you—including the Rural Coalition and The Federation of Southern Cooperatives, as well as Arkansas Land Development and Farm Corporation, as it relates to access to credit by minority and small scale farmers.
The family of 1890 Land Grant Institutions and Community Based Organizations referenced here are culturally diverse organizations of small-scale farmers of all races and in every region of the Nation.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In outline form, for example, the African-American farmer, as does all minority and small-scale farmers, have the right to farm. At their height in 1920, there were 925,000 African-American farmers in the United States. By 1997, this number had declined by 98 percent, to 18,451.
They have the right to obtain and retain land. They have the right to access to financial and program support. No group has qualified, based on their limited resource status, for USDA financial and program support, Commercial Bank, or other farm credit system support, but such support has been denied because of documented by the United States Commission on Civil Rights: The Decline of Black Farming in America, and the more recent report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms: A Time to Act in 1998, Implementation of the Civil Rights Action Team Report, USDA, 1997.
The criteria used by the USDA to determine eligibility systematically has discriminated against minority and small-scale farmers because it does not take into account the low financial status and various of young beginning small farmers in comparison to large-scale farmers who have had the ability to accumulate wealth over hundreds and hundreds of years.
The United States has the responsibility to see that these rights are enforced. There must be equitable access to credit, as well as equitable delivery of programs and services in order to provide a safety net for all minority and small-scale farmers, especially in the area of credit.
The current structure of agriculture programs strongly favors large producers over small. Recent increases in the payment limitation and return to annual and untargeted disaster relief subsidies, while politically feasible as emergency response, have enlarged and redirected farm support payments to even larger farmers.
These policy changes have resulted in a continually declining proportion of agricultural spending, supporting the small farm sector. In addition, many minority and other small farm producers who did not produce program crops, have not participated in agriculture programs at all.
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These farmers are dependent upon declining sources and access to Federal credit programs, leaving their families in a continuing cycle of debt without any real access to markets.
Currently, the Farm Service Agency offers several loans for beginning farmers and ranchers—guaranteed and direct farm ownership loans, as well as guaranteed and direct farm-operating loans, provides joint financing plans. This program also provided retiring farmers with a means of transferring land to a future generation of farmers and ranchers. The Commission on Small Farms, recommended examining existing State programs and the development of nationwide programs that facilitate established farmers in beginning farmer programs.
Recommendations: Additional resources needed to be directed to the small farm community for access. Perhaps, Target Direct Loan and Guarantee Loan Program for additional funding to minority and small-scale producers. Agricultural credit programs currently proposed an increase by 765 million over last year. Total loan authorization level, $3.8 billion, which is the same as the President's request. A proportionate amount should be directed at the minority and small-scale producers.
The USDA is the lender of last resort, however, there are so many unwarranted requirements and stipulations placed on loans to small-scale producers, including liens on homes. Non-farm assets should be distinguished and a recommitment to USDA's mission as a lender of last resort is very much needed by focusing greater attention to serving credit needs of minority and small-scaled producers.
Perhaps providing a safety net, just as large farmers. There is no program of such for small farmers. One recommendation would be to provide a new Small Farms of the New Millennium Support Program aimed at minority and small-scale producers—suggestion, perhaps, a minimum subsidy of maybe $10,000 per year.
Another concern would be the legislation should be proposed to repeal the provision that prohibit farmers who have previously had any debt forgiveness from receiving USDA loans or credit assistance.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another consideration would be fair access and servicing of FSA programs—adequate funding and fair access. In addition, we would also have some concerns as it relates to Farm Credit System. Some have concluded, and correctly so, that the reason for the decline in the loans and in black farming and in other minority, small-scale producers, can be attributed, in part, to the lack of financing.
USDA has attempted to reverse that that decline by implementing outreach programs and programs to target direct loan funds and guaranteed funds to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Accessing these and other programs of USDA has not been user-friendly, as it should have, as evidenced by the recent lawsuits and settlements and others pending.
There was an attempt to have a Memorandum of Understanding between USDA and National Bankers Association. The MOU would have provided at least $18 million to fund guaranteed loans, however, the MOU is still pending.
The Farm Credit System was created in 1916, as we understand it. Through direct Government/taxpayer assistance, the Farm Credit System has been able to position itself to reach the unprecedented high levels of profitability and capital and currently enjoying such. The indirect Government/taxpayer assistance continues today and will continue tomorrow, as evidenced by special appropriations.
The point here is, we want to accent CRA, not necessarily require a CRA in the Farm Credit System, but rather, to put a similar program in place such that those persons in the community would be able to enjoy similar rewards from funding by the Farm Credit Systems. Additionally, we are recommending that all references in the Farm Credit Act to young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers are similarly amended to include SDA.
And, Mr. Chairman, and the Commission, we would very much be available to answer any questions at this point and stand ready to support any and every action that is directed at increasing the financing that is made available to the small and minority-scale farmers. Thank you.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Hague.
STATEMENT OF TERRY HAGUE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FARMERS EXCHANGE BANK, CHEROKEE, OK, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. HAGUE. Chairman Lucas, and, members of the committee, I am pleased to be here on behalf of the American Bankers Association. I am Terry Hague, chief executive officer of Farmers Exchange Bank in Cherokee, Oklahoma, and I am a member of the ABA's Agricultural and Rural Bankers Committee. I am representing the agriculture banking industry and many bankers concerned about their farm and ranch customers. We are also concerned about our small business customers who are dependent upon the financial health of farmers and ranchers for their survival.
We wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for your prompt and effective response in each of the last few years to the critical needs of farmers and ranchers. You helped divert a serious and extended period of economic disruption.
At the end of 2000, banks had nearly $75 billion outstanding to farmers and ranchers. For every dollar of agricultural credit outstanding, 41 cents is loaned by banks. Continued low commodity prices and the uncertain nature of future Federal assistance to agriculture has heightened our concern about the continued viability of our farm and ranch customers.
From early January to early May of this year, staff of the ABA's Center for Agricultural and Rural Banking conducted 19 listening sessions in 14 States. Nearly 1,000 bankers and other stakeholders participated in the sessions. In the sessions we talked about a wide range of topics, from Federal support for agriculture, to trade, to FSA programs, to recommendations for the 2002 farm bill.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There was consensus about the need to create a farm policy that is consistent and allows for some level of certainty, both for producers and the bankers that finance them. Many bankers concluded that they are uncomfortable with the Price Assistance Program that works best only when there is an average to above average crop yield. The FSA guaranteed farm loan programs are some of the most cost effective tools that Congress can provide to farmers and ranchers.
Funding for operating loans with interest assist has run out for the year and there is a backlog of unfunded applications in excess of $20 million. Because these programs are such an important part of excess to credit, we urge you to make funding for these loan programs a priority. We also strongly recommend that Congress permanently repeal a 15-year term limit on guaranteed loan eligibility.
In 1992, Congress approved a low documentation loan program for FSA guarantees and set the limit at $50,000. We recommend increasing this ceiling to $150,000 on these applications. Many USDA services still require direct farmer contact by the FSA, but guaranteed lending is not one of them. Because many program delivery problems stem from the highly localized structure that USDA maintains, we recommend that FSA consolidate guaranteed loan making and loan servicing in specialized offices to ensure consistency of program delivery.
For the past 3 years, Congress has approved emergency assistance to farmers. USDA determined that these payments could not be assigned with an existing assignment form, even if a producer had assigned to the bank payments from all programs. We recommend that FSA create a blanket assignment form for USDA benefits that would attach to all program benefits now and in the future.
Bankers are very aware of work that this committee and others have done to improve the Federal Crop Insurance Program in recent years. We urge you to seek additional ways to make crop insurance a more effective tool for producers to manage production and price risk.
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bankers are enthusiastic about farm accounts. Farm accounts will encourage producers to save in the good times and use the balance during the bad times. Additionally, farm accounts will provide a new source of deposits to banks to lend back to businesses and individuals in their communities.
Aggie Bonds allow banks to use the bonding authority of participating States to fund qualified beginning farmers. More credit could be made available by banks to more beginning farmers if Aggie Bonds were exempted from Federal revenue bond volume caps. Bankers support efforts to stimulate economic development in rural America by lending to the businesses that support, in some way, or add value to the crops and livestock produced by farmers and ranchers.
The Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program allows us to make loans, to retain existing businesses in our communities, and to help attract new businesses. Some past problems with the program have now been prudently addressed. Unfortunately, all future borrowers are being asked to pay the price through increased loan fees. We oppose increasing loan fees on B&I guarantees.
Finally, we are concerned about the Farm Credit System. We support the U.S. Department of Treasury in their call for the withdrawal of the proposal to grant national charters to the Farm Credit System institutions. Also, we oppose the expansion of the System's charter and we question the need to continue the GSE status of the System. We believe that it is time for Congress to review the public policy purpose of this System and to retire their GSE status.
The banking industry remains committed to agricultural in rural America. I am happy to answer your questions.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Edelman.
STATEMENT OF HENRY D. EDELMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EDELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Henry Edelman. I am president and chief executive officer of Farmer Mac. It is an honor to appear before this subcommittee to offer testimony on these important and timely matters—the delivery of agricultural credit to the farmers and ranchers of America and Farmer Mac's role in that process.
I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of a company rapidly advancing in its Congressional mission of operating an efficient secondary market for agricultural mortgages. Our recent successes, effective programs, and strong current condition, were all made possible by your support and foresight in enacting the Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996. We have worked hard in the intervening years to justify the confidence Congress placed in Farmer Mac so that today thousands of farmers and ranchers have more than $3 billion of agricultural mortgages backing securities, guaranteed by Farmer Mac.
We actively support mortgage lenders, large and small, in all sectors of the agricultural credit industry, with effective programs and products. Since 1996, Farmer Mac has contributed to lender liquidity and capital adequacy, facilitating competitive rates on mortgage loans offered to farmers and ranchers. During the same time, Farmer Mac increased its own capital from about $12 million at the end of 1995, to over $100 million at the end of 2000 and satisfied every condition set forth by Congress in the 1996 legislation to ensure its continuing safe and sound operation.
Over the past 5 years, we have not only assembled programs that have appealed to both agricultural lenders and the farm borrowers they serve, but also broadened the acceptance of Farmer Mac in all sectors of the agricultural credit industry. We believe that we have made a great deal of progress, yet we know there is much more to be done before the industry reaches the level of efficiency and financial sophistication that exists today in the residential home mortgage market.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I noted in my opening comment, the 1996 reform legislation dealt very effectively with statutory limitations that had constrained Farmer Mac's development up to that time and provided the authorities Farmer Mac needed to move forward aggressively in the development of an efficient secondary market for agricultural mortgages.
The 1996 legislation enabled Farmer Mac to develop and offer to agricultural lenders mortgage credit enhancement programs that have contributed materially to lender competitiveness and mortgage availability throughout the United States. The relationships we have established with those lenders, including the Farm Credit System, commercial banks, and insurance company lenders, should lead to expanded use of the Farmer Mac secondary market over time.
The process, now underway, should ultimately move lenders away from dependence on mortgage portfolio management strategies, which tend to limit borrowers to less competitive, shorter-term mortgage interest rates, while exposing lenders to concentrated credit risks, and toward greater reliance on mortgage securitization, which permits borrowers grater choice and allows lenders to reduce credit concentrations. As has been proven in the residential sector, this process should benefit both lenders and borrowers in the agricultural sector. Farmer Mac is proud to be an intermediary in this beneficial evolution.
On a related matter, I would also like to comment on the USDA guaranteed loan programs, which were extensively revised by Congress in the 1996 farm bill. As you know, we purchase FSA guaranteed loans in our Farmer Mac II program. In most respects, we believe that the changes made in 1996 have contributed to a more streamlined and financially sound guaranteed loan program. Many of the lenders we work with report that the administrative processing of guaranteed loans has improved greatly, and the changes in loan limits and the allocation of funds have added much needed flexibility to the programs. Nevertheless, we believe that the programs could be reformed further to provide eligible borrowers with greater access to long-term fixed rate loans at more competitive rates of interest.
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The primary policy goal for agricultural credit over the next decade should be for the entire industry to achieve a level of parity with the residential mortgage market with regard to financing techniques and structures supporting highly competitive mortgage products for farmers and ranchers. By integrating the use of the Farmer Mac secondary market into their daily operations, agricultural lenders can transition away from portfolio lending to the extent they find it desirable to do so.
The financial services industry of the 21st century will be one based on the allocation of functions to those players who perform them best. As agricultural lenders increase their focus on the strategic goal of receiving riskless fee income for performing the functions at which they are the two experts—loan origination and servicing—they will be safer, sounder, and better suited to the delivery of lower interest rates to farmers, ranchers, and rural home owners.
We at Farmer Mac are dedicated to aiding and supporting lenders in that transition and we believe that our secondary mortgage market has reached the stage where the contribution we make is meaningful and real.
Credit legislation could be framed to support the continuing evolution of the agricultural credit industry toward the strategic goal I have mentioned. This might be accomplished by reference to Farmer Mac secondary mortgage market rates as a benchmark for use by the USDA. Sale and securitization would be logical, but not a compulsory consequence. As applied to those loans, such an approach would open opportunities for farm borrowers to have greater access to long-term fixed rates and for variable interest rates to be standardized and tied to published indices.
At the same time, adequate lender profits must be preserved to ensure effective competition among lenders and provide borrowers with ready access to multiple lending sources. In addition, adjustments to Farmer Mac's own statutory charter with a view toward reducing or eliminating certain limitations devised some 12 years ago, and toward updating Farmer Mac's business authorities consistent with the evolution of the financial markets generally and the agricultural and rural credit sectors in particular, could contribute to achieving the goal. This could include, for example, expanding the definition of loans eligible for the Farmer Mac secondary market to include rural development loans or rural small business loans, so far as an efficient secondary market would enhance opportunities for lenders and Farmer Mac is qualified and able to expand its market to include them.
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These ideas are preliminary, but are submitted for examination by the members and staff of this subcommittee. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our ideas further with you, Mr. Chairman, and with other members of the committee and subcommittee at your request. We thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edelman appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Ms. Cooksie, unless my math is wrong, looking at the testimony you have provided, it appears that one-third of the borrowers at FSA's farm program loan portfolio are beginning or what might be better described as socially disadvantaged farmers and they receive about a one-quarter of your $7.5 billion in loans that are available to family farmers. And my understanding is that in this coming fiscal year, the numbers will be even more impressive. From your perspective, do you believe that this represents a commitment by USDA to make progress in those areas and do you think we can continue in that direction?
Ms. COOKSIE. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Absolutely, I think, that it represents a commitment. But what we need to remember is that when we talk about targeted funds to SDAs and beginning farmers, other than the downpayment program for beginning farmers, we are only talking about targeted funds. We are not talking about any changes in the program. So when SDA farmers come to the door, they are subject to the same provisions of the regulations as any other farmer—the same interest rates, the same collateral requirements, and the whole 9 yards.
So I think when we talk about SDA programs, there are some people who think that it means something other than what it does. Now, statutorily, the only authority we have for SDA programs are the targeted funds. So I think that in the debate we need to talk about whether those authorities need to be expanded or not or whether that is sufficient. Because the only thing that really is there now is targeted funds.
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. I was particularly pleased to hear your comments about some of the positive consequences of the 1996 farm bill. And lots of times, whether it is in the subcommittee hearings or full committee or in my town meetings back home, we tend to hear the more complicated challenging side of the issues and why things have not been quite so effective. Has the Department, in your area, done any quantitative analysis about how much of the income assistance, AMTA, and the market loan assistance money that we have appropriated, wind up in the hands of folks who are FSA borrowers?
Ms. COOKSIE. I can't answer that question. I know that we have done it in FSA, but that doesn't mean that some other research department in USDA has not done it. We can certainly inquire to see if anybody in USDA has done that kind of analysis.
Mr. LUCAS. I think that would be fascinating. Mr. Robinson, in your testimony, you make comments about potentially creating some sort of a matching grant program to help beginning farmers establish that foothold in agricultural production. Could you expand, for just a moment, on that? I mean, who would provide the matching money and, in your concept, how would this work?
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concept is active and well, even as we speak, but from other sources. We have realized for some time, quite a number of years, that some farmers, or even just general businesses, agricultural businesses, rural businesses, need a jump start. They may not necessarily meet the eligibility criteria for standard loans—and I quote, ''standard loans.'' And not being able to meet the standard criteria even by local banks or of USDA. So sometimes a $5,000 or a $10,000 loan just to give a farmer a jump start, for operating expenses, to get a crop in the ground, to be able to generate a revenue, to repay even sometimes—in some cases, repay loans that he may already have existing with the USDA or the banks.
The thought is, is to provide such as the same concept that already exists with other large-scale farmers, some types of safety net—create a safety net such that those small, minority-scale farmers will have something to fall back on in terms of a grant to be able to sustain their operation.
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. You mentioned in your testimony about an effort to create a minority farm registry, which USDA is supposed to be in the process of doing, which apparently have not, as the testimony indicated, much progress is being made on. Do you have any feel for what is going on there or why or why not that is being accomplished?
Mr. ROBINSON. The information that comes to us as research and as we work hand in hand on a day-to-day basis, seems to be the lack of resources, as I understand it, and work. We work very closely with USDA personnel. We are no strangers in the field. We visit and we cooperate to the extent that we can and, in some cases, under cooperative agreements to work and provide technical assistance. So in other words, there are efforts to work together, but in those efforts to work together, we understand that the complaints come down to their lack of resources.
And I think the more resources that are placed even within USDA, within their average programs, within the personnel, to carry out and to perform those services, such as developing a registry and really capturing the statistics, I think, is needed.
Mr. LUCAS. Obviously, with a panel this size, we may well have to have more than one round of questioning. But abiding by the lights, I now turn to the ranking member Mr. Hilliard, for any comments or questions he may have.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions, and the first one is to Ms. Carolyn Cooksie. What is the current status of implementation by FSA of the target participation rate for minorities as established in section 335(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act—basically for farm ownership and farm operating loans?
Ms. COOKSIE. For 2001? Let us see, the obligations for fiscal year 2001 for direct loans is—direct operating loans, we have made 1,815; for guaranteed OL, we have made 312; for direct FO, 231; guaranteed FO, 209. So, so far this fiscal year, we have made 2,567 SDA loans. That is about 3 percent change over last year—up, higher than last year.
Page 405 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILLIARD. Do you have that in writing before you now?
Ms. COOKSIE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILLIARD. Would you provide the committee with a copy of that, please?
Ms. COOKSIE. Absolutely.
Mr. HILLIARD. And, also, would you please provide the subcommittee, for the record, a summary, on a national and State level, of the current participating rates among minorities, farmers, for, (1), FSA farm ownership, direct, (2), FSA farmer ownership guarantee, and, (3), FSA farmer operating direct, and, (4), FSA farmer operating guarantee? And I would very much appreciate that.
Ms. COOKSIE. We would be happy to, sir.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you. And, to my friends, the bankers, each banking group, the community bankers, the American Bankers Association, Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Farmer Mac, and the Farm Credit Council, I would like for each of your group to provide to this subcommittee, for the hearing record, a summary on a national and State basis, of the current level of participating rate of minority farmers as compared to other farmers in your subsidized agricultural credit programs that all your members participate in. And, of course, we are going to keep the record open for 10 days.
Mr. LUCAS. We will add it to the record when the information comes in.
Mr. HILLIARD. Right. May we have that information? And I will be very happy if you will send me a copy of it as you direct it to the committee. Thank you very much.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, first of all, I would like to address this to Ms. Cooksie. One of the complaints that I frequently hear as I travel around my district has to do with the amount of paperwork, the involvement in trying to apply for an FSA loan, and that sometimes young farmers, particularly and those people who are somewhat at risk, bad credit risks, hesitate to apply because of the complexity of the issue. And I wondered if there is much that has been done to alleviate that situation.
Page 406 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. COOKSIE. Absolutely. I think we have done it quite successfully in our guarantee program. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are currently working on doing these same kinds of streamlining things in the direct program as we did in the guarantee program. As a matter of fact, in the direct program, we implemented a 1-page application for loans $50,000 and under, just as we had in the guarantee program, that is already out and in the field.
When, at the end of the day, in a streamlining process, I think customers and our own employees are going to find the program much more user friendly and less paperwork burdensome. As I said in the testimony, we expect we will get rid of 1,200 pages of regulations and about one-third of the forms. So we are working very hard on streamlining the direct loan program. Mainly because we need to make the programs more accessible to our customers, but also with our strained resources of our employees, we have got to downsize the paperwork also.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK. Thank you very much. And I guess to Mr. Lowrey I would like to address a question. Obviously, Farm Credit has some of advantages. It is a GSE entity. And I guess the assumption I have made, and maybe it is incorrect, that there are probably ascending levels of risk that organizations should take on—FSA maybe the highest level of risk, and then, possibly because of the advantages Farm Credit has been given, in terms of tax advantages and access to funds, maybe the next level of risk, and then maybe the financial institutions, the least level of risk.
The complaints that we often hear are that Farm Credit is accessing some of the best loans and is sometimes disregarding the loans to younger farmers and those who are at higher risk. And I realize you are more profitable now than you were 15 years ago. And that is a concern. But I just wondered if you had any comments in regard to these accusations that you often hear.
Mr. LOWREY. Thank you, Congressman. First, to address the GSE status. We are very grateful for our GSE status, and it would be very difficult for us to survive without our GSE status. But I would like to point out that every regulated lender in this country has some protection, the Federal backstop that is provided by the Congress. While our GSE status allows us to issue our debt and our investors can take some comfort in the GSE status and require less of a premium, commercial banks raise their funds through their deposit base. And if the taxpayer was not standing behind those deposits, then obviously they would have to pay more to raise the funds that they raise through their deposit base.
Page 407 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are many large banks in this country. There are some 30 to 40 that would come under what some people call sometimes too large to fail. Because they are considered too large to fail, the assumption is made that Congress would always stand behind these banks and not allow them to fail. So because of that, they are able to keep their stock prices probably higher than they would be otherwise. And they are also able to raise deposits at a cheaper rate than they would be otherwise.
My point being is that Congress is the backstop behind the methods that we use to raise funds for all of our regulated institutions. We take very seriously our role to finance farmers, to finance all farmers. At the end of the day, though, we are a private institution with a public purpose. My goal, as CEO of the AgFirst Farm Credit Bank, is to make sure that we never have to come and stand before you again, as we did in the eighties, with too much adverse paper in our portfolio that creates the problems that you had to deal with back in the eighties.
And let us face it, if we had not had the support that you have given to farmers over the last 3 to 4 years, there would be some very difficult times among all the commercial banks and parts of the Farm Credit System. So I would challenge you somewhat in that we want to help every farmer that we possibly can. We want to make every loan that is bankable, but, at the same time, we cannot step down a level of risk from what you would see in other privately owned commercial institutions.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cooksie, could you—the designation of—is it socially disadvantaged farmer?
Ms. COOKSIE. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is that a farmer who has a gross income of $100,000 and less?
Page 408 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. COOKSIE. The socially disadvantaged designation in the statute is women and minorities, and I don't think it has anything to—it doesn't say income limits in there, I don't believe.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK. There is recent research that is done by the agricultural research community where they are looking at what we call a safety net. And in that, they are looking at all the resources that come from agriculture to socially disadvantaged, retired farmers, main farmers, farmers, $250,000, very large farmers, over $500,000, and then those who are over that. And looking at not only the AMTA payments, but looking at loans themselves, has there ever been a delineation between those—in incomes of those that you know of?
Ms. COOKSIE. I know the Agricultural Research Service a few years ago did some extensive research in answer to some questions about where loan money was. There is quite an extensive booklet on that that we could provide. I think it does link a little bit along the lines that you are talking about.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Right. If you could provide that to the committee, so the committee, as they look at the farm bill next year, to see actually by income level in addition to minority and disadvantaged, which sometimes we describe only as female and minorities it would be good to also look at the income and to see how the distribution of those loans have been made.
Ms. COOKSIE. We will provide the information they gave us to you.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK. Now, in response to the chairman's question about the commitment of USDA making resources available to traditionally the social disadvantaged farmer. My understanding of his account was that one-third—and I think he took it from your testimony that 71,000 family farmers—is that what you were referring to, Mr. Chairman? And then you looked at 24,000 and roughly, I guess, they came to one-third. Now, again, would that be, in your traditional sense, the social disadvantaged, meaning less than 40,000 small, minority, and women?
Page 409 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. COOKSIE. Socially disadvantaged, as we use the term, as under the statute, is for women and minorities, and that is exactly what it says. I don't know that we equate it with an income limit or anything like that.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So when you made the statement, you are saying that in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, FSA provided loans and loan guarantee totaling $7.5 billion to over 71,000 family farmers.
Ms. COOKSIE. Yes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Of this 24,000 should be women and minorities.
Ms. COOKSIE. No. We have totaled those together right there. There is 24,000 were beginning and SDA farmers.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK.
Ms. COOKSIE. So we are talking about a total. That is the one time in the testimony we put it——
Mrs. CLAYTON. So I—OK.
Ms. COOKSIE. Yes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. You do have that here.
Ms. COOKSIE. Right.
Mrs. CLAYTON. You have where beginning and socially disadvantaged——
Ms. COOKSIE. Right. And they are not inclusive, necessarily, though. Because we have beginning farmers and then we have minorities and women under beginning farmers, and then we have socially disadvantaged, which are women and minorities.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Could you break that down for us, please as to ones you consider socially disadvantaged.
Ms. COOKSIE. I think we can do that.
Page 410 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. I would appreciate it. I also wanted to ask could you describe how the FSA reaches out to its new and beginning farmers in the credit programs in general and its beginning farm programs, in particular? What procedures would a potential new or beginning producer use to access the regular information? In other words, describe your—if you don't have it now, do you——
Ms. COOKSIE. Yes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. You know it funds outreach——
Ms. COOKSIE. Well, I think it differs. I don't think we have a prescribed measure for every State. It is different for every State. We have goals that States have to reach. And so some States go out and they kind of beat the bushes and do a lot of outreach and speeches and they go to extension offices and that kind of stuff. Others put out newsletters to bring people in. I think there are a variety of things that we do.
One of the things that you will see in my testimony, though, is that even with all the outreach that we do, the problem that we are having is that we are not using all of our targeted beginning farmer money and talking to the States, because we were trying to figure out why we weren't using all of the targeted money. It is because farming right now is just a really hard business to get into. And so I think the bare question that we have got to deal with is how do we make the programs more accessible for beginning farmers? Because they are out there.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes.
Ms. COOKSIE. It is just hard to access the programs.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK. I yield.
Mr. HILLIARD. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. Let me make sure we don't have a problem with the information I requested in terms of question.
Page 411 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. COOKSIE. Yes.
Mr. HILLIARD. The information I have requested of each one of the groups, I am asking for a breakdown based on not minority and women, but based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Thank you very much.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I take back my time. Or do I have any time? I guess I am out of time.
Mr. LUCAS. I can give you an additional 1 minute.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK. Thank you. Ms. Cooksie, we are about to write a farm bill, hopefully, and credit is an essential part of getting into banking. And if you are talking about new farmers, obviously, that is certainly a part of it. And I will talk to Mr. Robinson and the Farm Credit on my second round. But are there things that if we are talking about increasing the opportunity to new farmers and making sure that family farmers and the individuals who are considered less than $100,000 gross—and I think that how they net it out is less than $40,000 net. If we are not pushing them out, what are the things we should be doing as an agency, financial last resort? Because it seems like the bigger boys and girls are now more at the trough and you are pushing the little family farmers—and you are not doing it, but the system seems to be the market system and everything is pushing the little guys out. And if we keep that continuing going either by our extensive omission or commission, we will see less families in farming, because they can't go to the banks who don't have the available debt. So and from a financial and a credit resource, what would you like to have us consider?
Ms. COOKSIE. Well, of course, let me make clear that the Secretary is just assembling her team, so we are not in a position to talk about any proposals or anything like that. But let me go back to a statement that I made a few minutes ago. And that is about, for instance, SDAs. I think that there are some people who believe that the SDA designation means that we have a different program to offer socially disadvantaged, which is minorities and women, than we do any other farmer that walks through the door. But we don't. Every farmer that walks through the door, with few exceptions, are following the same rules and regulations than any other farmer. And it doesn't matter whether your income is the $40,000 you are talking about, or if it is $200,000. If you qualify for the program, you qualify.
Page 412 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, perhaps, at some point, the committee would might want to look and to see if it makes sense to look at whether it makes sense for every farmer to fall under the same interest rate, the same collateral requirement, the same repayment terms, those types of things. It may bear out that it won't make a difference, but I do think that is one of the things the committee might want to look at in the long term.
Mrs. CLAYTON. But, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we do have differentiations in USDA because we do make a difference in home loans. And we make a difference in income. Safety nets, by economic standards, are made different. So in the farming business, agri-business of farming itself, if we are holding each farmer, regardless of their economic status, we are not adhering to the same public interest usually the Government has a right to get in. It is to assist those who can't go necessarily to the private sector or can't get it somewhere else. So there is a reason for the Government's intervention.
Ms. COOKSIE. The only difference is, is that some farmers may qualify for what we would call limited resource, which is a smaller interest rate. But in the long term, it doesn't really help a lot of farmers.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK. I will take another round later. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. And we will, indeed, have another round. Mr. Leighty, in your testimony, you comment about the fact that Congress enacted the FSA loan eligibility limits in the 1996 farm bill. And that was apparently an effort to, of course, to free up USDA loan funds so that they could be concentrated on other areas beginning in small farmers. If Congress were to eliminate those limits permanently, do you have any thoughts about how we would be able to spread that limited credit around among the various and competing needs?
Mr. LEIGHTY. Are you referring to the 15-year limit of graduating people out of the program?
Mr. LUCAS. That is part of it. Yes.
Page 413 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEIGHTY. And the question is, do I have a suggestion of how to allocate those funds?
Mr. LUCAS. If you take the various eligibility limits that are off, 15 years being part of that, and other things, that means then there are more competing demands for that limited pool of resources. How do we make the decision about how to allocate that is what I am asking you for some guidance on?
Mr. LEIGHTY. It seems to me that the focus needs to expanded in the guarantee program in that that is the best bang for the buck, or the most leverage of dollars. I think the records would show that that has been quite successful and that allows a larger amount of guarantees. It is, of course, the private lenders' funds that are laid out to the borrowers. Of course, they are guaranteed if you would have a large catastrophe or problems in the system-wide. But I would say, in a nutshell, the best way to approach that would be in the guaranteed level instead of direct loans.
Mr. LUCAS. Could you expand on that, Mr. Hague, and also touch on your comments about the importance of the assignments issue?
Mr. HAGUE. Yes. I basically agree with that. I think when the 15-year limitation, for example, was set, no one envisioned the kind of economic times we would be faced with right now in agriculture. And it is really a bad time to be asking people to leave the program. And your other question was?
Mr. LUCAS. About the assignments issue on the payments.
Mr. HAGUE. The assignments issue is basically a paperwork nightmare for banks and USDA because the farmers come in and basically give a blanket assignment to banks on Government payments. But then when we do the supplemental programs, the USDA said, well, that assignment doesn't cover those. So what we are asking for is the farmer's intention was to assign those payments, which he did, and the paperwork should be sufficient to cover those so we don't need to do more paperwork.
Page 414 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. The comment was made in the discussion about the importance of increasing the deposit insurance limit. Could either or both of you comment on—and I know that is not the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. But sitting on Financial Services, which is a committee I also sit on, this is an issue that intertwines with capital availability, I think, in rural areas. Could you touch on that for just a moment, either or both of you?
Mr. LEIGHTY. I would be glad to. We think it is a very important issue. I would like to expound—earlier on the GSE status. I think it is very important to distinguish that deposit insurance is paid for by the banks, and those who are protected by the deposit insurance are the depositors. And there is a very important distinction to be made there. And we do find that expanding this would, we believe, change the outflow of funds. We see many cases where elderly people pass on and the funds that are in local rural banks, tend to leave to the next generation that has moved to the metropolitan areas. And we do believe that expanding the deposit insurance levels would help rural community banks with funding sources.
And, as was pointed out, there are a few large institutions that are deemed—whether it is correct or not, that are viewed to be too big to fail, whereby depositors feel that they can put unlimited amounts and have a safety net behind them. That is not the case in the majority of the community banks that exist in this country. And that insurance level has not changed since 1980. We believe it should be indexed for inflation, which would be close to double that amount here 21 years later.
Mr. HAGUE. I have no major disagreement with that. I think one of the issues is at what cost will be that additional insurance coverage. And as long as that cost is reasonable and fair, most or many community bankers do support that and also supports some type of indexing.
Mr. LUCAS. We are back to Mrs. Clayton.
Page 415 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Leighty, in your testimony, you emphasized your preference for the direct loan, but when you get down to the guarantee farm safety net, you have several pieces in which I find interesting. One, was first quickly adopting a new farm aid package. That was today. And that was——
Mr. LEIGHTY. That is pretty quick.
Mrs. CLAYTON. That is pretty quick.
Mr. LEIGHTY. Thank you.
Mrs. CLAYTON. And those are grants. And I like that idea. And I just wanted to tell you I like direct loans too, and that is less than a grant. But you like the idea of giving direct aid to farmers, but the direct loan, you don't like too much, but you like the guarantee loan. Could you explain the difference of those three?
Mr. LEIGHTY. Well, what I was probably not very adequately explaining, but it seems to me to broaden those that are touched by these programs, that the guaranteed lending is a way for the Government to make funding available to a larger number of qualified borrowers by allowing the private sector funds to be directly loaned to them with the safety net there in the form of guarantees. I think it could even be explored that in—and the percentage guarantees—I think it should be open for discussion, what is the appropriate amount for that.
I might, if I could digress, although you didn't ask this, at this time, and when we are talking about starting or trying to help the start-up—the young person in the family farms, nothing that you can do will have the same impact as helping to restore profitability to the industry. I am not sure we do these young people a favor getting them into farming if we cannot have an industry that doesn't hold some promise of them being able to make a respectable living.
And right now, many of our borrowers, young and old alike, simply are not making a respectable return on their investment, let alone their labor.
Page 416 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. I agree with that. We are in agreement.
Mr. LEIGHTY. And I hope I didn't depart from your question, but——
Mrs. CLAYTON. You did, but I agree with your departure. That they are struggling. But I guess I wanted to point out that the equation of making direct loans to young, beginning farmers, is less riskier than giving a grant to farmers.
Mr. LEIGHTY. Yes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Yet we have no problems in giving big grants to farmers who are having problems in it. But we have problems in making more direct loans to struggling or beginning farmers. I just want the ground to be even for those who are struggling as for big persons.
Mr. LEIGHTY. I would clearly agree and I hope nothing in my written or oral statement would imply that it would not be in favor of the direct loans.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK.
Mr. LEIGHTY. Just recognizing the limited number of dollars available is where the emphasis was made on the guaranteed loans.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I think you are right that, though we do have more—you spread the money out. But there is a need for the Government to always keep that opportunity for people who want to get in or, indeed, who are struggling in that area. Otherwise, you foreclose that. The other one that you made and I am going to comment on is, No. 5, adopting new policies that are capital and business opportunities to rural America. And I couldn't agree with you more. Because about 6 percent of our rural Americans are actually in farming, but, indeed, the other part of us, we are not. And as the farming goes, so will rural communities. So we need a healthier environment in rural America if we are going to survive. What—would you recommend some things that you had in mind when you made that recommendation?
Page 417 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEIGHTY. Well, I think that one of the important things, although it is not an easy task, is to try to find ways to diversify our rural communities. In driving across Kansas within the last couple of months, I note that so many of the farmsteads that were once viable that housed families with children getting on the busses, are not rusting away. They are sitting empty. And the population of the community that I live in has seen a decline since the 1940's steadily. Every decade there has been a decline. As people move away in Colorado to the front-range area where there are just more opportunities.
And it seems like that there is such a change in the nature of agriculture that we are going to have to find diversification, whether that be through value-added programs and more manufacturing of the finished product at the point of source than there is currently. I am not wise enough to tell you how we can do that, but it seems unless we can diversify some of these rural communities, it is a pretty bleak outlook.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you. We are trying to get this committee to consider rural developments. So I thank you for your testimony. It helps me lay the foundation for it. Mr. Robinson, you referenced a Memorandum of Understanding. Was that a Memorandum of Understanding with Farm Credit, or was that a Memorandum of Understanding with USDA? And did it involve Farm Credit? And the other part of the question is, you mentioned that Farm Credit was not—did not adhere to the principle of CRA. What do you have in mind? I know they aren't required to, but what do you have in mind?
Mr. ROBINSON. Right. Yeah. What we had in mind there—well, first of your question—that it does make reference—the Memorandum of Understanding with USDA were in conjunction with the National Bankers Association——
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is it with the USDA or with Farm Credit?
Mr. ROBINSON. USDA.
Mr. ROBINSON. That was the distinction—USDA. And as I understand it, there was a pending Memorandum of Understanding, which, I understand, was signed by then Secretary Glickman, which was not actually implemented.
Page 418 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. What would it have done?
Mr. ROBINSON. It would have created an opportunity for mainly minority-owned banks, institutions, to provide nearly $18 million, which would have served as—conceptually similar to the USDA guarantee and service, additional collateral——
Mrs. CLAYTON. Oh. These banks came together to pool their resources to make available dollars that could be guaranteed by—oh Ms. Cooksie, do you know where that is or what that is——
Ms. COOKSIE. Well, I know that the memorandum that was signed previously.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK.
Ms. COOKSIE. We worked with Mr. Tillman Carr and for some time and the Department on that. It was signed. It has expired. I understand that it has been brought back to the Department. But as I said, the people that would sign it are really not in place. I think that is probably the biggest hold up on it at this point. But let me just say that the points that we had with it the last time, when we originally got it, were things that we could not have done statutorily, which caused some problems.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK.
Ms. COOKSIE. One of the pieces of it, we were asked to put aside a certain amount of guaranteed money for this Memorandum of Understanding, which legally we could not do because we are, by statute, first come, first served.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK.
Ms. COOKSIE. So there were some things that we had to work around. There was an issue with the Office of Outreach that they would actually work with the farmer and the bank that we are talking about. The Office of Outreach, at that point, did not feel with the existing 2501 contracts that they had enough money—in the 2051 Program, enough money and that the contracts weren't clear for the 2501s to do that, and they would have to be re-negotiated.
Page 419 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So there were a number of issues. But having said that, we did, Secretary Glickman, at that time, did sign an MOU with NBA. And I don't really see why that USDA may not be willing to do that again. I think the problem is, is that the people who would sign it are not actually in place to get it through the system and get it done at this point.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Does the statute allow you to do it as you now—I mean——
Ms. COOKSIE. As it is now—as the old MOU was, it certainly did allow us to do it because we agreed that we couldn't set aside funds for that and some other things that we couldn't do. And we agreed on what we could do. So as the old MOU, certainly we could—if we could have done everything in there, obviously it would have been signed. Yes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I am abusing my time, but I am going to ask the Farm Credit to respond to Mr. Robinson's concern about the lack of diversity. I think he said CRA, and CRA is a requirement that the bankers have. I am not negative to the Farm Credit at all, but I am also very pro to the principle of having financial institutes serve all of their services areas. And so I would like you to respond.
Mr. LOWREY. Thank you, ma'am. And so are we. We want to make sure that we are serving all the farmers out there. I certainly don't want to come away from this hearing with any perception that Farm Credit is not serving small and beginning farmers or serving minority farmers. And I would like to point out to you that in our 15 States in the AgFirst district, that while we agree that there is a terribly small number of minority farmers, and based on the 1997 census, there is only 2.6 percent of the farmers in our 15 States and Puerto Rico who would qualify as minorities. That percentage of loans that we have in our portfolio is actually 3.7 percent. So it is important to us to be able to show to you that we are actually exceeding, in our portfolio, what the demographics would say.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mrs. Clayton.
Page 420 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could he provide it to the committee?
Mr. LUCAS. I would be pleased. Any information would be made available.
Mr. LOWREY. And I would like to follow up just a second on one of the things that Mr. Hilliard asked for. We can certainly provide that to you based at the district level. We are prohibited from collecting this information about race, creed, religion, that sort of thing, at time of application by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. As I suspect, some of these other gentleman and ladies will be also. So we can give you information that we are able to collect by surveys and that sort of information, but it may be very difficult for us to provide the information by State, simply because we are prohibited from collecting that information at the time of application for a loan.
Mr. LUCAS. The committee understands that and we will expect you to provide what is available and within the guidelines of Federal law, of course.
Mr. LOWREY. And we will do that.
Mr. LUCAS. And I certainly would assure one of my dear colleagues, that rural development is an important thing for this entire committee and this Chairman certainly. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would like to start with Mr. Hague. And I noticed that you mentioned that you oppose national charters, Farm Credit, oppose GSE status, Farm Credit. And I would like to maybe flip that question a little bit. Rather than removing some things from Farm Credit, do you see some things that could be added to the bankers that would make what you would feel a more level playing field?
Mr. HAGUE. Well, I agree with your original comment that banks are the No. 1 lenders to American agriculture. And we stand by the U.S. Treasury's statement that expansion of the Farm Credit System is bad public policy. And I think what you are getting at is that banks pay taxes. There have been some things talked about that could benefit banks in that regard and possibly level the playing field. And one is that banks be able to retain earnings.
Page 421 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, as you know, any business, you have got to retain capital and earnings in order to serve your customers and we are real proud of our record in servicing small, beginning family farmers. And in order to do that, to serve the businesses in our communities, we have got to retain capital. So if we could retain that capital and not pay taxes on it until later—I am not advocating that we never pay taxes on it. If, at a later date, we should pay out that capital, or those retained earnings, say, in the form of dividends, then, at that time, it would be taxed. Am I getting at your question?
Mr. OSBORNE. Right. And also, in access to capital. Do you feel like you are getting adequate access to capital at the present time?
Mr. HAGUE. Well, obviously, we don't have GSE status, which is an advantage that we don't have. We are continually working on new ways to access capital. And I think you will find, and we have discussed, that the access to capital in rural America is often times a big problem. One thing the American Bankers Association is doing, we are working on a project now in connection with some others, and it is in its infancy stages, but to develop ways to get more capital to rural America where it is badly needed. Your point is very well taken.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK. Thank you. Just quickly, a couple of other questions. We have been talking a lot about small farmers and beginning farmers. I would like to ask Mr. Robinson, first of all, how do we define a small farmer? How do we define a beginning farmer or a young farmer? And in the area I am from, maybe 50 years old is a young farmer because the average is 60. And it seems to me that unless we have some adequate definition, it is very difficult to set up programs as to who these folks are.
Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you for the question. I think the standard definition has been those that have the gross receipts—well, for the small farmers, those who have gross receipts less than $250,000, which encompasses a large number of farmers. The beginning farmer that we have come to know on a day-to-day basis, those persons—you could be 50 years old and just starting. Those persons, as I understand it, through definitions, through guidelines of the USDA, those persons who have been farming less than 10 years. That also encompasses quite a number of farmers—up to 10 years. So a person could be a beginning farmer and having been there all but 9 years or so.
Page 422 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The person that I think that, in my testimony, that I have really emphasized has been those struggling—and as has been alluded to by the other member of the committee, those struggling, those with limited resources, minority, small-scale producers, who still would like to reap the benefit of having some of its tax dollars returned to their communities. So those are the persons that I think we make the reference to when we say beginning, minority, small-scale farmers—those who do not meet eligibility criteria to walk into banks and really be able to meet the standard criteria. They need a safety net, a shot in the arm, something that will cause them to get those funds, for they are not able to get them otherwise.
Mr. OSBORNE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. And thank you all for your testimony. As I talk with farmers and other panels we have heard today, a lot of the concern they have is that our farm programs really go into higher land prices, not really helping the farmers. And in the 1980's, we struggled, and you all in your organizations, struggled with falling land prices. And yet we have historic low levels of commodity prices, yet the land prices are continuing to hold up.
But I am not looking, obviously, to reduce land prices and create the same type of issues we had in the 1980's, but I am seeking you guys' input as to how we can make sure we are designing a program that is really going to help the farmer, not just help the landowner, which are increasingly becoming two different people. So those of you that are involved in land lending, if you could please respond to that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. LOWREY. Congressman, I will give it a shot. Obviously, the net cash flow that you have provided to agriculture has held up the value of properties. And the part of the country that I work with on the east coast and the south, generally has so much of an urban influence that those program payments are not necessarily driving up the price of land in the south and the east coast. In fact, if you look at all of our States, only about 13 percent of the net cash flow, net cash income of farmers, is coming from Government payments because of the high level of specialty crops and livestock operations in our part of the country.
Page 423 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certainly, we think what you have done has been very important to hold up the economic base of agriculture because it touches so many other industries. I know that you are wrestling with ways to touch other crops and deal with AMTA payments. But I think that you don't sell yourself short. You have done a wonderful thing by not only holding up the farm income, but supporting that part of the economic activity of this country that touches agriculture.
So I probably talked around your question some. I don't know of a way for you to—anything that you do that changes the net cash flow stream back to agriculture, will have some impact on land values. If we keep it high, it has an impact of maintaining the values. But if we let those cash flows change dramatically downward, then you are going to have a slip in land values.
Mr. LEIGHTY. Yeah. I would agree. I might point out, it is interesting of the area of where I live and serve, we have a large percentage of our land in grass for cattle ranching. And, as you know, our cattle ranchers are not receiving payments, such as the grain producers. And even in those cases, land values continue to march up beyond what you would expect that the prices that they sell for are above what anyone can pay and realize as good a return as they could on most any other investment. So it is not just limited to those land prices affected by the crop payments.
And I would echo what Mr. Lowrey said, as far as if you don't have a program somewhat similar to what you have done in the past, you are going to see even worse profitability in the industry. We have many borrowers that—in fact, the majority of our borrowers simply would show losses if it had not been for the additional payments that have been made available. And even with those payments, we see a number of our farm producers that 2 years out of 5, the last 5, would show some losses even with those. So as he said, don't sell yourself short. Without what you have been doing, it would have been a disaster.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I think part of the things we are wrestling with is that you are saying is general economic conditions that are increasing land prices, whether it be the northeast or just the fact that there is only so much land in this country—that combined with them also increasing the price of the dollar, is making it very challenging on us here.
Page 424 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, finally, maybe the people from—again, who would sell crop insurance—have you seen much affect in terms of both planting patterns or efforts that go within increased yields or increase usage of crop insurance since we have implemented those reforms in the prior year?
Mr. LEIGHTY. Most definitely—more use of the crop insurance. It is very—and not as much planting patterns in our own area, but as far as accessing and taking advantage of insuring the crops, we have seen a large increase in our users. Yes.
Mr. HAGUE. And, as I testified, we would encourage you to continue to make improvements in crop insurance.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank you for your comments. And my last question, if someone could respond—I think the American Bankers Association, you talked about on the LDP effects that weren't really 100 percent what you would like. We had the corn growers that presented a proposal to us that had a holistic approach based on farm income, not just on price, and, yet, chose to go with recourse loans instead of non-recourse loans because they were having a holistic approach for their safety net that included both price and quantity. How big of an impact would the farm program moving to recourse loans have on the banking system?
Mr. HAGUE. We are concerned about a program that relies on average to above-average crops to receive a lot of the payments. And we think there is a better way to do it. The bottom line out there is that our American producers need certainty. They need to know what they are going to get. And when you have got some areas that have had severe droughts and things like that and didn't have the production, then their payments were drastically lower, instead of more certainty, where they should have been higher.
Mr. KENNEDY. OK. Well, my time has run out. Thank you for your comments.
Page 425 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panel. I am just curious what your perspective might be on what we are doing differently today that has put the agricultural lending community in fairly good position relative to where we were back in the 1980's, when we had the same type of depressed commodity prices and all kinds of foreclosures and all kinds of problems.
And I guess I am curious as to whether it is because as lenders, you have changed the way that you do things and it is more cash flow-oriented versus asset-based or are we, with the farm programs we have today, inflating land values because of all the Government payments that are going out so that if those land values ever started falling, would we have the same sort of problems we had back in the 1980's? And that is a very circuitous way to ask a question, but what are we doing differently today than we were then, because, obviously, it seems to me to be a very different—as someone who sort of observed and lived through that period, a very different period of time now.
Mr. LEIGHTY. I would take a stab at that. I think the 1970's there was a mentality of inflation in land values, inflation in general. That if any dollars you could borrow to buy land, 3 years later it would be worth 30, 40 percent more, so you had better get on that bandwagon and borrow the money and you could always cash in at that higher price if you needed to. And what we saw was deflation in values and the profitability wasn't there with low commodity prices. So, to a large degree, there was asset-based lending. I think the lenders need to take a great deal of the responsibility for that and the borrowers wanted to participate in that and make money in that form.
And, in reality, when the land—many people paid 2,000 an acre for land and when they realized they couldn't make their payments, had to go to the auction block, and maybe it sold for $12,000 an acre or $900 an acre. And I do think there has been a shift away from asset-based lending, much more to making the cash flow projections support the borrowing. That would be my opinion.
Page 426 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. OK. Thank you.
Mr. LOWREY. Congressman, I would also agree with that. It is some of both. We have certainly done a better job of underwriting our portfolios than we did in the 1970's. I can remember coming to work in the mid-1970's, and there was not a place for the employees to park because there were so many farmers waiting for you to open up to apply for a loan. So it was a much different situation. We are better underwriters. We are much more concerned with the cash flow that an operation can generate, rather than just the collateral under the loan. And I think that flows through all the banking industry. I know it flows through the Farm Credit System.
Your support that you have given the program, the ad hoc payments that have been on top of some of the other programs, all of that has availed itself to a much better situation today for the lender. And, as I said earlier, had the amount of Government assistance not been there, you would still see some very difficult times with the people on this panel and the people back home.
Mr. THUNE. If we shifted sort of emphasis on the new program—and I guess, it seems to me at least that the AMTA payments gets factored into the land values and everything else, and, perhaps, artificially inflate some of those land values—if we go to a different delivery system for payments or whatever, I suspect, in some way, a lot of money is going to be out in the agricultural economy, in any case. But is there a scenario in which those land values begin to fall because they aren't supported by the AMTA payments and some of the Government payments that are sort of decoupled from production that we have today?
Mr. LOWREY. As we talked a little bit a while ago, anything that we do to change that cash flow associated with that piece of property, is going to have some impact on the value. So it is a complicated equation. It has to do with—if the economies in Europe and Asia can pick up and we can get better export prices that help us get better commodity prices, then that changes the equation. But anything that changes that cash flow stream back to the farm associated with that piece of property, is going to have some impact on the value.
Page 427 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. OK.
Mr. LEIGHTY. I would fear that any action that would result in lower prices would have the unintended effect of brining in more outside investors—doctors, attorneys, people that might have some extra money to invest—and that it would not have the impact of making land more affordable for beginning farmers. I just think it is very hard to divorce land values from any payment programs that you are going to conceive, whether they are much different than what we have now. I am certainly not convinced that any action that is going to result in lower land values will be beneficial to our country.
Mr. THUNE. I don't think it would be beneficial to the—certainly the lenders and to the agricultural economy, generally, either. I was just asking, I guess, from a policy standpoint, the current programs, the way they are delivered, they are factored in, I think, in the land values, and whether or not there would be some adjustment that is made if you had a different mechanism by which some of those payments were delivered to producers. Because it is strange, you have to admit. You have got falling commodity prices, or at least commodity prices that have stabilized at a very low level, and, yet, you continue to see these increasing land values and that the productive value isn't there. It it is the payments that seem to be, at least, supporting that. But just an observation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Thune. And if the panel would indulge for a few more questions, we will then turn you loose and express our appreciation. A couple of the underlying points that come through in testimony, and I have read all of your written testimony—a couple things that reach out and grab me. Number one, the challenge of directing resources so that they address the needs of a large part of our potential farming community out there that have difficulty in the present system.
That said, though, let me touch for just a moment, Mr. Hague, Mr. Leighty—your resources in your financial institutions are a combination of deposits made by your bank customers and the capital, the equity of your owners. Correct?
Page 428 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAGUE. Correct.
Mr. LUCAS. Not your money. It is the money that belongs to those two folks. Mr. Lowrey, your resources are a combination of the patronage capital accumulated by your members, as a co-op, and the bondholders money that you use, borrow to use, and then are accountable for back to them.
Mr. LOWREY. Yes.
Mr. LUCAS. Which brings us around to the concept of which is more important, directing resources, or the safety and soundness of those items. From the perspective of all three of you, is it better that you be challenged to direct resources or is it better that some entities, such as USDA, FSA be given the responsibility and the challenge of trying to make sure that those resources wind up in appropriate places?
Mr. LEIGHTY. I think there has to be a combination, as we currently have now. I would say to you that in the case of independently owned banks, it is my money in the capital account as an investor who is at risk and has money borrowed to pay for that stock in the bank. Believe me, it is not some intangible investor that I don't see and know. It is the local people in our community that are the shareholders, along with myself. So that is a little different approach.
Mr. LUCAS. But if we legislatively drive resources and clearly, as good financial officers in all of your institutions, if the opportunities to make these loans exist and exist in a fashion that you feel fairly competent in, I would assume you are going to make those loans?
Mr. LEIGHTY. Yes.
Mr. LOWREY. Mr. Chairman, if I could, as I said earlier, we want to make every bankable loan that we can make. We want to help every farmer that we can help. And we will use the guaranteed programs, to the extent that we can use those, to help with every situation that we can. I do think, though, that you cannot take a private entity. We are a cooperative. We are owned by all the members who do business with us. It is a difficult situation that you get into if you have one group of stockholders actually subsidizing another group of stockholders.
Page 429 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, it is very difficult to maintain a credit culture where sometimes you are doing what we sometimes refer to as soft credit and the other times you are trying to maintain good underwriting standards. So I think that we have to establish a culture that generates acceptable underwriting standards so that we will always be a safe and sound institution. We want to help everywhere that we can. But if we do anything that takes us beyond the pale of being a safe and sound institution, then we have created a problem for the taxpayer, and potentially created a problem for the investor.
And while it is an admirable public purpose that we support, we think much of that has to be done through USDA.
Mr. HAGUE. As far as we are concerned, you are right, the money we are loaning out belongs to our customers up and down Main Street. We use a lot of the programs that are out there. We use the beginning farmer program a lot. We use the FSA Interest Assist Program. We use the State of Oklahoma Interest Assist Program. We use the FSA Guaranteed Program. We have got several loans to Spanish and women and so on, down the line. So we are using those programs, but not at the expense of safety and soundness.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Robinson, your experiences of study and working with USDA and FSA, in particular, do you believe it is possible that we can craft programs that would meet the needs that exist out there through USDA, whether it is guaranteed loans or other efforts? Do you think it is possible?
Mr. ROBINSON. I think it is possible and I think all sides and those represented here at this panel and, as well as USDA and our Nation's Government, have to just acknowledge the fact that we do have people out there of all races who have, by either circumstance, consequence, or what have you, live in rural America. And in some cases, they don't have any other choices but to pursue those industries that are around them and in their arena and in agriculture and farming.
Page 430 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I believe it is possible if all agree to do it. I think that the programs that have been talked about and explained and discussed here today certainly some of them to be commended. I like Mr. Leighty's comment that there has to be some of both. There has to be a combination of willingness to give and take, because these people are still struggling. And while there are efforts to maintain profits and sound business practices and keep the banks open, keep the credit systems open, there are still people out there who are trying to feed their families and send their children to school.
And I would urge all the representatives here to be serious—and we are serious about what we do. But we need to be concerned more about the customer, about those persons who are really trying to make a living at farming.
Mr. LUCAS. A point well made, Mr. Robinson. Coming from a family that have been borrowers since usury was invested several thousand years ago, I appreciate that point completely.
Mr. ROBINSON. OK.
Mr. LUCAS. One last question, observation, turning to you, Mr. Lowrey. You have been the topic, in a direct or roundabout way, through various written and oral presentations. Just for my own state of mind, you referred several times to the cooperative structure of your organization. If you didn't have a GSE status, would you most likely still be a co-op?
Mr. LOWREY. Well, certainly, our cooperative structure is what makes us unique. And I would like to digress just a second on the tax question that——
Mr. LUCAS. And being a co-op, you would be exempt from taxes. Right?
Mr. LOWREY. That is right. We are able to—if we pass those earnings back to the 79,000 customers who make up our institution—and that is what makes up the $1.4 billion that we have passed back to our customers through the years—as being a part of our cooperative, the farmers gets the profit piece of the organization paid back to him through time.
Page 431 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So that is certainly what makes us unique as a financial institution. To operate without the GSE status would be very difficult. But I do think that we would continue our roots as a cooperative even if we——
Mr. LUCAS. But still, you would have access to resources through Home Loan Bank Board and Farmer Mac. He would be around. He wouldn't go away.
Mr. LOWREY. We would figure out some way to exist, we hope, but without having the GSE status, these gentlemen, some 76 percent of community banks have access to GSE funds. To have to back up and do something in the vein of setting up a total deposit infrastructure would be extremely difficult and expensive. So I would tell you that it would be very difficult for us to exist without our GSE status.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair would just like to note that it is ultimately the goal of the committee, of course, not only to make sure that the resources are available to those who need them in production agriculture, but so that we have a sufficient playing field to make sure those resources are available in the most competitive fashion.
And with that, I guess I should say, without objection, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from witnesses to any question posed by a member of the panel. And this hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of Henry D. Edelman
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is Henry Edelman. I am the president and chief executive officer of Farmer Mac. It is an honor to appear before this Subcommittee to offer testimony on these important and timely matters—credit conditions, and agricultural credit industry activities and programs to deliver credit to farmers and ranchers in the United States and Farmer Mac's role in that process.
Page 432 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to appear before you today as the CEO of a strong and growing company rapidly advancing in our Congressional mission of operating an efficient secondary market for agricultural mortgages. Reflecting back to 1995, when we appeared before Congress and requested urgently-needed changes to Farmer Mac's original charter, I am pleased to report that Farmer Mac's recent successes, effective programs and strong current condition were all made possible by your support and foresight and the consequent passage of significant reform legislation—the Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996. We have worked hard in the intervening years to justify the confidence Congress placed in Farmer Mac, as an important contributor to a stable and competitive mortgage credit delivery system for agricultural borrowers.
Today, thousands of farmers and ranchers have more than $3.1—billion of agricultural mortgages that back securities guaranteed by Farmer Mac. We are actively supporting mortgage lenders large and small, in all sectors of the agricultural credit industry, with effective programs and products. Since passage of the reform legislation in 1996, Farmer Mac has contributed to lender liquidity, capital adequacy, and increasingly competitive rates and loan products for farmers and ranchers seeking mortgage funds. By the end of 1996, Farmer Mac was able to report its first year of profitable operations since its creation in 1988; its performance has improved each and every year since, reflecting the soundness of its new operating structure. Over the same period, Farmer Mac increased its capital from about $12 million at the end of 1995 to over $100 million at the end of 2000 and satisfied every condition set forth by Congress in the 1996 legislation to ensure its continuing safe and sound operation.
Over the last five years we have not only put together programs that have appealed increasingly to both agricultural lenders and the farm borrowers they serve, but also broadened the acceptance of Farmer Mac to all sectors of the agricultural credit industry. During that period, commercial banks, Farm Credit System (FCS) institutions and insurance company lenders have become more aware of Farmer Mac and gained a better understanding of the benefits of Farmer Mac's secondary market operations and credit enhancements for agricultural mortgages. In so doing, agricultural mortgage lenders have shared with us many of the challenges they face and we have worked to help find solutions that provide them with effective access to a more competitive and stable mortgage market. At the same time, we also developed important new relationships with institutions in all sectors of the credit industry. We believe that we have made a great deal of progress since 1996, yet we know there is much more to be done before the industry reaches the level of efficiency and financial sophistication that exists today in the residential home mortgage market.
Page 433 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you requested, I shall take the next few minutes to summarize the state of agricultural credit as we see it, comment on Farmer Mac's agricultural mortgage programs and activities under the 1996 reform legislation, and suggest a few general legislative proposals that this Committee might wish to consider.
THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CREDIT
2000 was the third consecutive year when prices for core agricultural commodities were at levels that prompted Congress to provide additional income support to farmers to avert serious economic stress. Conditions likely to place continued stress on the U.S. agricultural sector persist in 2001, with reports of strong or expanding production in many countries, low commodity prices, and weak market demand worldwide for major field crops. In USDA's most recent forecast report, the value of crop production for 2001 had fallen about $3.7 billion just from the January forecast, while the forecast for the livestock sector rose about $6.7—billion. Despite the low prices for most major commodities, cash receipts from sales during 2000 rose $7.4—billion above the 1999 level to $196.0 billion. Offsetting the increase in cash receipts was a $7.6—billion increase in cash farm expenses. Total net cash farm income, as reported by the USDA, remained relatively strong at $56.4 billion in 2000, above the 1990–2000 average of $54.8 billion and up from $54.6 billion in 1999. Without taking into account the additional $5.5—billion provided for agriculture in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 but not yet authorized, USDA estimates that net cash farm income will drop during fiscal year 2001 to $52.4—billion. The higher net cash income in 2000 was attributable primarily to continuing government support payments, now estimated by USDA at $22.9—billion for the year, compared to $20.6 billion in 1999 and $12.2 billion in 1998. The final numbers for fiscal year 2001 will be much clearer after Congress acts to distribute the budgeted funds to agriculture.
How did these conditions affect agricultural mortgages? As reported by USDA, farm real estate debt, the component of agricultural debt potentially eligible for the Farmer Mac secondary market, increased to $97.3 billion during 2000, up from $94.2 billion in 1999, and is projected to rise to $98.6 billion during 2001. Each commercial lending sector maintained or increased its share of the agricultural mortgage market during 2000 and agricultural lenders reported profitable performance, good loan quality (with some recent increases in delinquent and non-accrual loans), and liquidity adequate to support lending activities during 2000. In addition, the value of good farmland was stable or slightly higher in most regions of the Nation during 2000.
Page 434 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While the facts I have referred to thus far would suggest stability and strength in agricultural mortgage credit, this view is based on many assumptions; the numbers do not tell the whole story. First, this healthy picture is due, in considerable measure, to Congressional intervention with record direct payments to the agricultural sector during the last few years. Second, many lenders are experiencing increased risk concentrations with the agricultural mortgages they hold in their portfolios, due in large measure to economic stress in the agricultural sector, and they are actively seeking outlets to diversify this risk. This is accompanied by reports of rising delinquencies, which we are also experiencing at Farmer Mac, and a slowing of the rate of growth in agricultural mortgage originations. In addition, farm debt repayment capacity, which compares farmers' actual debt levels with the amount of debt they could repay from current annual income, is expected to rise according to USDA from 61 percent in 2000 to 65 percent in 2001. These numbers indicate that farmers are likely to have more difficulty making timely interest and principal payments on their debt. Lastly, as risk has increased, a number of lenders have become increasingly capital constrained and have tightened underwriting requirements that make it difficult or impossible for some farmers who urgently need credit to obtain it with competitive rates and terms.
We believe that there are steps that can be taken by the lending sector to supplement the support provided by Congress and so minimize the potential for current stresses on farmers and ranchers to precipitate serious credit problems. I will comment on these shortly.
Effectiveness of the 1996 Legislation
As I noted in my opening comment, the 1996 reform legislation dealt very effectively with the statutory limitations that had constrained Farmer Mac's development up to that time and provided the authorities Farmer Mac needed to move forward aggressively in the development of an efficient secondary market for agricultural mortgages. This legislation enabled Farmer Mac to transition into a profitable, growth-oriented corporation with strong financial support in the capital markets. It also enabled Farmer Mac to offer effective and competitive programs and mortgage products to agricultural lenders and the farmers and ranchers they serve. (Please refer to Appendices I and II to this testimony for a description of Farmer Mac's programs and the status of the Corporation's development through March 31, 2001.) We are proud to be able to report to this Subcommittee that Farmer Mac has responded to the opportunity Congress provided it through the enactment of the 1996 legislative reforms: we have listened closely to agricultural credit providers and users, and provided them with effective programs and products to support the mortgage credit needs of farmers and ranchers.
Page 435 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, since 1996 Farmer Mac has focused on fortifying its financial strength through the retention of earnings and the sale of stock to investors to build its regulatory capital and stockholders' equity levels to more than $100 million by the end of the first quarter of 2001. Farmer Mac has been in compliance continuously with the regulatory capital standards Congress established for it in 1992 and has cooperated with the FCA on the development of its risk-based capital regulation, which was published recently as a final rule in the Federal Register. We are currently working with the FCA to understand fully the operation of the risk-based capital regulation. Until we have had an adequate opportunity to work through this process with the FCA, we will not be in a position to comment on the regulation. However, we would like to reserve the right to come back to this Subcommittee at an appropriate time to discuss the regulation if issues exist after we have completed our discussions with the FCA.
The 1996 legislation enabled Farmer Mac to develop and offer to agricultural lenders mortgage credit enhancement programs that have contributed materially to lender competitiveness and mortgage availability. Although at $3.1 billion of guarantees outstanding Farmer Mac still represents only a small fraction of the agricultural mortgage market, we have developed effective working relationships with lenders in all sectors of the industry. The relationships we have established with those lenders, including the Farm Credit System, commercial banks and insurance company lenders, should continue the expansion of the Farmer Mac secondary market. The process now underway should ultimately move lenders away from dependence on mortgage portfolio management strategies, which tend to limit borrowers to less competitive, shorter-term mortgage interest rates while exposing lenders to concentrated credit risks, and toward greater reliance on mortgage securitization, which permits borrowers greater choice and allows lenders to reduce credit concentrations. As has been proven in the residential sector, this process will benefit both lenders and borrowers in the agricultural sector; Farmer Mac is proud to be the intermediary in this beneficial evolution.
Page 436 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On a related matter, I would also like to comment on the USDA guaranteed loan programs, which were extensively revised by Congress in the 1996 farm bill. As you know, we purchase Farm Service Agency (FSA) guaranteed loans in our Farmer Mac II program and therefore have had the opportunity to observe at first hand the operation of the revised FSA programs. In most respects, we believe that the changes made in 1996 have contributed to a more streamlined and financially sound guaranteed loan program. Many of the lenders we work with report that the administrative processing of guaranteed loans has improved greatly and that changes in loan limits and the allocation of funds have added much needed flexibility to the programs. Nevertheless, we believe that the programs could be reformed further to provide eligible borrowers with greater access to long-term fixed rate loans at more competitive rates of interest.
Policy Goals and Legislative Suggestions
The primary policy goal for agricultural credit over the next decade should be for the entire industry to achieve a greater level of parity with the residential mortgage market with regard to financing techniques and structures that support highly competitive mortgage products for farmers and ranchers. By integrating in their daily operations the mortgage securitization and similar credit enhancements available through the Farmer Mac secondary market, agricultural lenders can move away from the cloistered world of portfolio lending. The financial services industry of the 21st century will be one based on the allocation of functions to those players who perform them best. As agricultural lenders increase their focus on the strategic goal of receiving riskless fee income for performing the functions in which they are the true experts—loan origination and servicing—they will be safer, sounder and better suited to the delivery of lower interest rates to farmers, ranchers and rural homeowners. We at Farmer Mac are dedicated to aiding and supporting lenders in that transition and we believe that our secondary mortgage market has reached the stage where the contribution we make is meaningful and real.
Page 437 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Credit legislation should be framed to support the continuing evolution of the agricultural credit industry toward the strategic goal I have mentioned. This could be accomplished by reference to the Farmer Mac secondary market rates as a benchmark for fairness and efficiency of loans directly made or guaranteed by the USDA; sale and securitization would be a logical but not compulsory consequence. As applied to those loans, such an approach would open opportunities for farm borrowers to have greater access to long-term fixed rate loans and for variable interest loans to be standardized and tied to published indices. Realistic limits on spreads above those indices could reduce credit expenses significantly for many of these borrowers, provide greater opportunities for them to remain in farming, and maintain the competitiveness of their farming operations while restricting the government's exposure to losses on those loans. At the same time, adequate lender profits must be preserved to ensure effective competition among lenders and provide borrowers with ready access to multiple lending sources. In addition, adjustments to Farmer Mac's statutory charter with a view toward reducing or eliminating certain limitations devised some twelve years ago, and toward updating Farmer Mac's business authorities consistent with the evolution of the financial markets generally and the agricultural and rural credit sectors in particular, could contribute to achieving the goal. This could include, for example, expanding the definition of loans eligible for the Farmer Mac secondary market to include rural development loans or rural small business loans, so far as there is no efficient secondary market for them today and Farmer Mac is qualified and able to expand its market to include them.
These ideas are preliminary, but are submitted for consideration by the members and staffs of this Subcommittee. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our ideas further with you, Mr. Chairman, and with the other members of the Subcommittee at your request.
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to address the Subcommittee on these important issues today. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
Page 438 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of F.A. Lowrey
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify here today and for allowing me to present the Farm Credit System's view on agricultural credit conditions and on credit-related proposals for the next farm bill.
My name is Andy Lowrey. I am president and chief executive officer of AgFirst Farm Credit Bank. AgFirst provides loans and related services to more than 79,000 farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses and rural homeowners in 15 Mid-Atlantic and Southern states as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We have 24 Agricultural Credit Associations that serve local communities throughout our states and employ over 1,800 people. Our assets total $13.5 billion. As a cooperative, AgFirst Farm Credit Bank and its affiliated associations are owned and governed by their customers. Our boards are made up of members elected by our stockholders. Working together with our associations, we tailor our business to meet the needs of our customers.
Today, I am appearing on behalf of the entire Farm Credit System. Farm Credit institutions provided just over 26 percent of total farm business debt used by America's farmers and ranchers in 2000. In total, Farm Credit has more than $75 billion in loans outstanding to agricultural producers, farmer-owned cooperatives, rural telecommunications and utility systems, rural homebuyers, and agriculturally related businesses. Farm Credit is the dominant lender for agricultural cooperatives and the single biggest source of financing for the GSM agricultural export loan guarantee program.
In my testimony today, I want to provide the committee with an update on Farm Credit's mission and our success in achieving it. I will provide Farm Credit's current assessment of the rural and agricultural credit markets. And finally, I will identify legislative changes that are needed if Farm Credit is to continue to fulfill the role Congress established for it.
Page 439 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before I proceed with my testimony, however, I want to give the committee an update on agriculture and credit conditions in AgFirst's territory. Our area is blessed with a high degree of crop and livestock diversification. However, adverse weather, low prices and increasing cost, especially for fuel, have created economic stress in portions of our portfolio. This has not currently affected our overall credit quality, but indications are that again in 2001, as in the past two years, many crop producers are facing extremely challenging times. While conditions in the poultry and livestock sector are generally more favorable, the dairy industry is just recovering from very low prices in 2000.
Recent years' returns from farming operations have in many cases been negative despite very significant Federal Government support of segments of the agricultural industry. The globalization of agricultural markets continues to put pressure on a number of specialty and high value crops.
We can readily see the positive impact of Federal assistance. The congress has been far-sighted in providing economic assistance to rural communities whose viability is largely built around the ag sector. As cooperative owned and operating lending institutions, the AgFirst family is highly cognizant of the importance of value creation among our borrowers. In these tough economic times for farmers, government and the cooperative sector, together, are valuable contributors to the economic well being of the rural population. Our organizations are well capitalized and positioned to provide a solid support of loans to credit worthy farmers and to agribusiness, while also providing a patronage dividend from our earnings. There are indications in our territory that availability of ag credit from commercial banks today is shrinking. This is true as a result of consolidations and the low market returns to the industry. Our farmer boards of directors and management recognize the cyclical nature of ag markets and are committed to using all the tools available, including FSA and loan guarantees to work with borrowers under stress during the current down turn.
Page 440 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our cooperatives' approach is to be fully supportive of not only full time farmers, but also of part time farmers and rural residents, especially to meet their housing loan needs. This approach has served our institutions well as the significant level of non-farm income supporting the repayment capacity of our loans is the highest in the Farm Credit System. Our credit quality reflects this advantage. While it is a result partially of geography and demographics, it also is a result of strategy and a solid, well-identified business focus.
On behalf of everyone in Farm Credit, I want to express our gratitude for the committee's efforts over the past several years to help American agricultural producers through this period of extremely low commodity prices. The additional assistance provided has meant the difference between survival and bankruptcy for many farmers. We encourage the committee to continue to provide additional support for producers during this difficult time.
Through the difficulties experienced by our customers, Farm Credit remains steadfast in its resolve to do all we can do to help our customers. Having a strong lender who understands these difficulties and who can serve the many needs of these customers is vital to keep their operations healthy in the long-term.
I'm pleased to report the AgFirst Farm Credit Bank and its affiliated associations continue to be a strong source of credit for the agricultural community. In 2000, our success was evident in our numbers.
Net income increased 7.5 percent
Loan volume grew by more than 9 percent
Credit quality remains high
Return on average assets was 1.85 percent, and return on average equity was 11.05 percent.
There are three reasons that contribute to our continued ability to deliver value to our stockholders and the marketplace.
Page 441 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, our business model works. We believe it works because we focus on a few simple, but sound principles.
We make sound constructive loans. Collectively, sound and constructive loans create a high quality loan portfolio. And that equates to stable and consistent earnings. America's farmers need a solid source of credit that will be around to help them not just today but well into the future. We work closely with our customers to help them be successful in the long run.
We believe our patrons—our member/borrowers—should share in the success of their cooperative. In April of this year, we returned value to our stockholder-customers by providing over $172 million in patronage refunds.
Our stable, consistent earnings have made it possible for us to pay patronage refunds consistently. Associations in the AgFirst family have paid patronage refunds to their member-borrowers each year since 1989, distributing more than $1.4 billion in those 12 years. That's an average of almost 25 cents of every $1.00 of interest earned. $804 million was distributed in cash. This money flows to their local communities, so that rural America can continue to thrive and grow. It also helps farmers cover operating and living expenses.
We believe in providing good customer service. And we do. Again, the evidence is in the numbers. In a recent Gallup survey, borrowers throughout the AgFirst District reported a satisfaction rating of 9 on a 10-point scale. Furthermore, 99 percent of them said they would recommend us to others. Most cite our people and the quality of service they provide as the reasons they would recommend Farm Credit to others.
Secondly, our business model helps us attract new, high quality business. Since 1995, we've distributed more than $800 million in patronage refunds and, during that five-year period, our loan volume has grown by 23.5 percent. Our credit quality is high, as evidenced by the fact that our nonaccruing loans were only 0.60 percent of total loans at the end of 2000.
Page 442 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, our associations take advantage of our federated cooperative structure to control costs. Certain tasks are centralized at the bank level. Typically, these are the operations center sort of tasks. Through these efficiencies, our associations are able to focus on their customers more fully as far as their loan and financial service needs. In addition, their ability to control their costs allows them to return value to their customers through patronage.
Through our success, we believe that we will continue to fulfill the Farm Credit mission.
Farm Credit's Mission
As America's largest cooperatively owned agricultural lender, we in Farm Credit appreciate the committee's focus on the credit needs of agriculture. We believe that Farm Credit has played a vital role in the development of American agriculture as the most productive in the world. As agriculture has changed through the years, Farm Credit has kept pace and provided the capital necessary to fuel agriculture's productivity. We continue to do so today. As we look to the future, however, additional changes are needed if farmers and ranchers are to continue to have a cooperatively owned financing alternative available for them.
The Farm Credit System was created by Congress in 1916 to provide American agriculture with the dependable and affordable source of credit it needed—through good times and bad. For 85 years now, Farm Credit has successfully fulfilled that mission.
Farm Credit has a specific, but critical mission: to help ensure the health and well-being of American agriculture by providing a dependable and competitive source of financing to rural America. Farm Credit's constant presence in the marketplace means that farmers have a choice among lenders. The competition between Farm Credit and other lenders creates competition for farm loans and results in interest rates that are competitive with other industries and in higher service levels for farmers and rural businesses. Our focus on agriculture means farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives have a reliable source of credit.
Page 443 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, Farm Credit is not the lender of last resort. Congress has assigned that duty to the USDA's Farm Service Agency. Farm Credit is not in place to address a market failure. Instead, Congress assigned Farm Credit the job of ''providing sound, adequate, and constructive credit and closely related services to farmers, cooperatives and selected farm-related business' (12 U.S.C. 2001(a)). When Congress recodified the law governing the Farm Credit System in 1971, it stated Farm Credit's mission very clearly—to encourage farmer- and rancher borrowers participation in the management, control, and ownership of a permanent system of credit for agriculture which will be responsive to the credit needs of all types of agricultural producers having a basis for credit (12 U.S.C. 2001(b)).
By giving agricultural producers an opportunity, through Farm Credit, to own and control their lending institutions, Congress ensured that producers would always have access to credit. Farm Credit is dedicated to serving the financial needs of U.S. agricultural producers and rural communities.
Reversing the Flow of Capital—Congress designed Farm Credit to reverse the usual flow of capital, channeling private funds from the Nation's money markets to rural America. As agriculture's Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), Farm Credit raises money on Wall Street to lend to agriculture and other rural enterprises.
Ensuring Competition for Farm Loans—In its early years, Farm Credit, through the old Federal Land Banks, was virtually the only long-term mortgage lender to American farmers and ranchers. Over the years, others, including commercial banks and insurance companies, have come in and out of the market. As the agricultural credit markets evolved, Farm Credit served as the constant force in the market. Other lenders, when they chose to engage in agricultural lending, were forced to compete with Farm Credit. This competition provided competitive interest rates and better loan terms to farmers. Farm Credit continues in this role today, serving as the only constant and reliable source of competitive pressure in the agricultural lending markets.
Page 444 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Farmer Control—In addition to fostering competition for agricultural loans, Farm Credit gives producers and their cooperatives an opportunity to own their own lender. FCS banks and associations are cooperatives, owned and governed by the farmers, ranchers, and cooperatives that borrow from them. This cooperative principle is the foundation upon which Farm Credit is built. It guarantees Farm Credit's unwavering commitment to serving agriculture and rural communities.
GSE Status—To help fulfill its commitment to serve agriculture all across the country, Congress provides Farm Credit with the ability to access the agency debt markets. As a GSE, Farm Credit benefits from the implicit backing of the Federal Government. This implied support allows us to maintain a triple-A credit rating in the bond markets.
Farm Credit uses this credit rating to gather loanable funds in a cost-effective manner. In this regard, GSE status is Farm Credit's counterpart to deposit insurance, which allows commercial banks to attract depositors at a lower cost. An important difference between the two is that GSEs have implicit government support while Federal deposit insurance is explicitly backed by the Federal Government.
Farm Credit Financial Discipline—Farm Credit lending institutions are subject to the full regulatory and examination authority of an independent Federal agency: the Farm Credit Administration. The three-member FCA board of directors is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Although Congress sets the FCA's annual budget, the agency's operating costs (approximately $38 million in 2000) are paid entirely by the lending institutions it regulates.
Like other Federal financial regulators, FCA routinely examines all Farm Credit lending institutions, and has full authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, levy civil money penalties, remove officers and directors of System institutions and establish financial and operating reporting requirements.
Page 445 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Besides Federal regulation, all Farm Credit lending institutions have additional financial safeguards:
—Risk-Based Capital Standards—By law, FCA requires all Farm Credit System lending institutions to maintain minimum permanent capital equity ratio at 7 percent of risk-adjusted assets. All System lenders are well above this minimum level.
—Contractual Interbank Performance Agreement—All FCS Banks, the Funding Corporation, and the Financial Assistance Corporation have entered into an agreement that establishes an agreed-upon standard of financial condition and performance for the banks.
—Insurance Fund. With passage of the Farm Credit Act of 1987, Farm Credit banks began paying into the Farm Credit System Insurance Fund. The Fund exists to insure the timely payment of principal and interest on insured obligations of System banks. On December 31, 2000, the fund totaled some $1.626 billion.
—Joint and Several Liability. By law, all of the banks within the Farm Credit System guarantee the payment of principal and interest on Systemwide debt issued to raise loanable funds on the money markets.
In summary, Farm Credit has been a success story. Congress authorized the Nation's farmers and ranchers to build a privately owned system that brings the financial resources of Wall Street to agriculture and rural communities. It ensures fair competition in the marketplace that keeps interest rates competitive. And finally, through its cooperative principles, it ensures a continued strong financial commitment to all agricultural producers having a basis for credit—in good times and bad. All this adds up to value being delivered by the System.
Rural and Agricultural Credit Markets
Farm Credit's financial condition remains strong despite extraordinarily low commodity prices. This financial strength is due, in large measure, to the high level of government payments to producers over the last several years. However, while there has been some strengthening of commodity prices this year, input costs, particularly fuel and related items, are high and rising. Lower interest rates are alleviating some stress, but most farmers continue to experience a cost/price squeeze. Complicating this predicament, some regions of the country are experiencing very unfavorable weather. As a result of all these factors, we expect that additional government assistance to farmers will again be necessary in 2001. We urge Congress to provide this assistance.
Page 446 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FCS Condition
Farm Credit continues to demonstrate financial strength in virtually all performance categories. Loan volume rose to $76.031 billion in the first quarter of 2001—up some $800 million compared to this time last year. Net income for the first quarter rose to $390 million compared with $312 million in the first quarter of 2000. Continued strong financial performance resulted in an increase in overall capital within the System to $14.595 billion. Capital as a percentage of assets stood at 15.4 percent at March 31, 2001 compared to the regulatory minimum capital level of 7 percent required for individual FCS institutions. Farm Credit relies on this high level of capital to see it through the inevitable downturns in the agricultural economy.
Of note, Farm Credit's troubled loan volume rose in the first quarter, though it continues to stand at relatively low level. Nonperforming loans (which consist of nonaccrual loans, accruing restructured loans, and accruing loans 90 days or more past due) increased $67 million to $946 million at March 31, 2001, as compared with $879 million at December 31, 2000. These loans represented 1.24 percent and 1.17 percent of the System's loans at March 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000, respectively.
A recent survey of Farm Credit lenders provided an interesting insight to the current market conditions. Reports of higher than normal turnover of agricultural land seem to be confirmed by increases in loan volume to both new and existing customers in most Farm Credit associations. Some 61 percent of responding System associations reported loan volume increases compared to one year ago. Half of System institutions reported that land values increased in the last six months while nearly the remainder reported that values were about the same as six months ago. For 2001, 32 percent of System institutions were expecting land values to increase while 61 percent were predicting values to remain steady. Only 6 percent predicted land values would fall in 2001.
Page 447 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most System institutions see clouds on the horizon. Some 55 percent report that they expect an increase in troubled loans and other non-performing assets. In addition, a number of System loan officers are noting financial difficulties in farm related businesses. While farmers and landowners continue to benefit from government assistance, many agribusiness firms are struggling. In particular, input suppliers and marketing firms are being hard hit by the continuing downturn in prices. We encourage the committee to closely examine the financial situation facing many of these businesses.
Market Structure and Competition
U.S. agricultural credit markets have changed dramatically in the past decade. Most of these changes, naturally, mirror the changes occurring in U.S. agriculture. As producers have changed their operations to adapt to the marketplace, agricultural lenders have adapted their practices and products to meet the changing financing needs of American agriculture.
Congress has played a role in this evolutionary process. As inadequacies appeared in financial markets, Congress has stepped in to fill the gaps. In just the past decade, Congress completely rewrote the Nation's financial services laws. Starting in the mid-nineties, Congress allowed commercial banks to operate branches across state lines. This watershed legislation preceded a period of massive consolidation within the banking industry that resulted in the creation of the largest banks in the world. Congress, in the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation, completed its overhaul of depression-era banking laws, virtually demolishing the separation between banking, insurance and securities firms. As a result of this legislation, commercial banks now have virtually unlimited authority to offer products and services to meet a variety of financial needs.
In addition to expanding the authorities of commercial banks, Congress awarded them with nearly unfettered access to funding from GSEs. Prior to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, commercial banks could access the Federal Home Loan Bank System, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fund loans for homebuyers. In addition, Congress had given banks GSE access for agricultural lending through Farmer Mac and the Farm Credit System.
Page 448 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, however, banks were given direct GSE funding access through the Federal Home Loan Banks to support farm and rural business lending. As a result, a commercial bank today has access to GSE funding that is commensurate with the access provided to Farm Credit lending associations from Farm Credit Banks. The commercial bank, however, has been authorized by Congress to provide a far broader range of products and services.
Commercial banks, in effect, are now GSEs with virtually unlimited operating authority. Meanwhile, Farm Credit's authorities remain basically unchanged since the Congress enacted the Farm Credit Act of 1971—some thirty years ago.
By broadly expanding the authorities of commercial banks and, at the same time, providing them access to GSE funding, Congress has reshaped the competitive landscape between commercial banks and Farm Credit.
USDA's Economic Research Service, in its February 2001 edition of ''Agricultural Income & Finance,'' illustrated this competitive trend. Noting that, ''agricultural banks remained very profitable through the middle of 2000,'' the ERS showed that banks substantially grew their marketshare of agricultural loans. From 1990 through 2000, ERS data reveals that Farm Credit's share of total farm business debt remained fairly stable. Farm Credit held 25.9 percent in 1990 and 26.4 percent in 2000. Meanwhile, commercial bank share of that debt grew substantially, from 34.5 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2000.
The result of Farm Credit's presence in the marketplace is strong competition for agricultural lending opportunities. This competition is vigorous and it benefits agriculture and rural communities.
We support full and fair competition for agricultural loans among all financial industry participants. Our commercial bank colleagues also have said they support strong competition in the market place. However, they contend that the Farm Credit System has an unfair advantage in the market. Given the vast changes in law, their broad access to GSE funds, and the continuing high profits of commercial banks, these complaints are wholly without foundation.
Page 449 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even the U.S. Treasury, long a well known critic of GSEs in general and Farm Credit in particular, acknowledged in a May 2, 2001 letter to the Farm Credit Administration that, 'some of the System's competitors have also gained improved access to other GSE funding. The Treasury went on to note that this ''fact complicates any assessment of the competitive environment in agricultural credit markets . . ..''
In summary, vigorous competition between Farm Credit, commercial banks and other lenders is benefiting U.S. agricultural producers. Producers have choices among lenders, financial products and related services. In short, pricing is competitive, service is better because Farm Credit ensures competition in agricultural and rural credit markets. The more intense the competition, the greater the benefit for American agriculture.
USDA Credit Programs Appear to Be Working
This committee was instrumental in adding flexibility to the lending limits for FSA guaranteed loans. We very much appreciate the flexibility allowed by the 1996 farm bill. It was a recognition of the changing financial reality of farming in many high-cost regions of the country.
As for additional changes, we encourage the committee to continue emphasis on the guaranteed loan program. We also would suggest allowing FSA the flexibility to guarantee a lease. Small farmers, particularly those just beginning their own operation, may be better off leasing land and equipment. FSA guarantees of these lease contracts would improve our ability to serve these farmers. We hope the committee will examine this issue closely as it debates the credit title of the farm bill.
Congress Can Help Meet Rural Credit Needs
Farm Credit is working hard to meet the changing financial needs of American agriculture. To continue to fulfill its mission going forward, however, Farm Credit needs to be equipped to meet the changing needs of agriculture and rural America.
Page 450 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, Farm Credit's charter needs updating. Last changed materially in 1971, Farm Credit's lending authority is becoming outdated. Today and in the next century, producers are becoming more dependent on new and existing value-added agricultural businesses to provide markets for raw commodities. Farm Credit, agriculture's traditional lender, must be able to finance these operations. Unfortunately, we are unnecessarily restrained by an outdated charter from meeting their financing needs. Congress can and should modernize Farm Credit's charter during the next farm bill.
Second, and this might be more appropriate for a discussion of the rural development title of the farm bill, Farm Credit supports efforts to increase the availability of equity capital for farmer-owned cooperatives and other rural businesses. We recognize that rural America is not sharing fairly in the unprecedented prosperity of the rest of the country. There is a real need to more broadly diversify our rural economies and to generate new sources of equity capital for rural business development. We encourage the committee to consider legislation to encourage private investment in value-added agriculture enterprises, producer-owned cooperatives, and other projects that existing venture capital funds do not accommodate. These types of investments would provide off-farm income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business opportunities in rural communities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we encourage the committee to urge the Farm Credit Administration to abide by the direction given to it by Congress in the Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996. Section 212(b) of that Act states the following: ''The Farm Credit Administration shall continue the comprehensive review of regulations governing the Farm Credit System to identify and eliminate, consistent with law, safety and soundness, all regulations that are unnecessary, unduly burdensome or costly, or not based on law.'' FCA has yet to fully implement this statutory directive. Having them do so would go a long way toward providing Farm Credit institutions the flexibility they need to continue to serve farmers, ranchers and cooperatives into the future.
Page 451 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing us to give our views on serving agriculture. During the upcoming farm bill debate, we will suggest specific ways the Farm Credit Act can be updated to permit the System to continue to fulfill its mission of service to agriculture.
We look forward to working with the committee during consideration of the farm bill. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views here today.
Statement of Carolyn B. Cooksie
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to review the status of the FSA farm loan portfolio, discuss the impact of certain provisions of the 1996 farm bill, and point out some issues of concern for the future. I am not able to provide specific proposals to address some of the issues and concerns today, but we are developing proposals to present to the Committee at a later date.
FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans to farmers who are unable to obtain private, commercial credit. FSA borrowers range from beginning farmers and ranchers who cannot qualify for conventional loans because they have insufficient financial resources to established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters, or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable farming operations. The goal of FSA's farm loan program is to assist eligible individuals and families through outreach, technical assistance, and supervised credit so that they become successful farmers and ranchers. Regardless of the type of loan, FSA's financial assistance provides a safety net for borrowers who have reasonable prospects for economic viability in agriculture.
PORTFOLIO STATUS
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by reviewing the status of the FSA loan portfolio. I am pleased to report that the FSA farm loan portfolio is showing its best performance in many years. As of March 31, 2001, there were 95,842 borrowers owing $9.5 billion in the direct loan portfolio. In the guaranteed loan portfolio, 40,559 borrowers owe $8.3 billion. All programs are performing well— direct loan delinquency is the lowest in over 20 years at 12.3 percent, the direct loan loss rate is the lowest since 1987, and we have made progress in reducing the number of delinquent million dollar-plus direct loan accounts, from 748 at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1995 to only 180 at the end of fiscal year 2000. In addition, inventory property numbers are the lowest since 1980. The guaranteed loan portfolio is also performing well. Delinquency is at an all-time low of 1.83 percent, and dollar losses have remained low despite continuing growth of the portfolio. In fiscal year 2000, losses paid were only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the principal outstanding.
Page 452 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this is particularly noteworthy because, at the same time, FSA loan volume has increased significantly—more than 65 percent in recent years. In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, FSA provided loans and loan guarantees totaling $7.5 billion to over 71,000 family farmers. Of this total, 24,000 were beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, who received assistance totaling $1.9 billion. In fiscal year 2001, demand for FSA's farm loan assistance remains strong. As of March 31, 2001, loans and loan guarantees totaling $1.5 billion have assisted 15,000 farmers with their credit needs. A significant portion of this loan assistance—$515 million—has been provided to 6,000 beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers. The lending season is currently at its busiest and most critical time, and FSA is working hard to rapidly process the thousands of applications coming into county offices.
Mr. Chairman, one of the best indicators of program performance comes not from internal statistics, but from the General Accounting Office (GAO). In January of this year, the GAO announced that the FSA farm loan programs were removed from that Agency's list of designated high-risk Federal programs. The FSA farm loan programs, and predecessor agency Farmers Home Administration farmer programs, had been designated as high-risk by the GAO for over 10 years.
IMPACT OF 1996 FARM BILL PROVISIONS
I believe there is no single factor, but a combination of several different factors which led to these achievements. First, the 1996 farm bill instituted provisions which create strong incentives for FSA borrowers to repay their loans. Prior to these changes, there was no disincentive for borrowers to have FSA debts written off rather than to repay them. The Agriculture Credit Act of 1987 inadvertently created a ''revolving door'' where borrowers could repeatedly get loans, have them forgiven, and then get new loans. The 1996 farm bill included provisions which instituted prohibitions on further FSA loan assistance to borrowers who are delinquent or who have received debt forgiveness, and a one time, $300,000 limit on debt forgiveness. These limitations have caused FSA borrowers to more carefully consider the consequences of failure to repay their FSA loans.
Page 453 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OTHER FACTORS
Provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act have also been beneficial. The possibility of offset of FSA program payments and Federal income tax refunds, and bars on participation in other Federal credit programs provide additional incentives for borrowers to repay their FSA loans.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, borrowers cannot pay if they do not have money to make payments. The significant amount of government farm payments over the past few years is also a major factor in portfolio performance. I cannot estimate the exact impact of government payments on the FSA portfolio, but clearly, under the conditions we have been experiencing in the agricultural economy, the various payment and compensation programs enacted by Congress have affected many borrowers ability to repay FSA or their other creditors. As you know, FSA only lends to those who cannot obtain credit elsewhere.
I cannot overstate the importance of the tremendous amount of hard work by FSA field staff in implementing the numerous program changes, and in working to help borrowers avoid or resolve delinquencies. FSA employees have logged many long, hard hours working to assist borrowers. This is a difficult, often frustrating task—borrowers are under stress, there are no easy solutions, and sometimes the answer is not the one the farmer wants to hear. It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, the increase in FSA loan volume and reduction of delinquencies has been achieved with no increase in farm loan staffing levels.
PROGRAM STREAMLINING
Faced with a heavy work load and limited staff, we have developed ways to decrease the paperwork burden for both staff and program customers. Both the guaranteed and direct loan programs now have abbreviated applications for loans of less than $50,000. In February of 1999, we published regulations which simplified and streamlined the loan guarantee process. The new procedures are more consistent with industry standards and have resulted in faster processing, allowing lenders to give more timely service to farmers in need of a guarantee. Within the next few months, we plan to publish final regulations to dramatically streamline and simplify the emergency loan program for both farmers and FSA staff. We have also undertaken a major initiative to streamline all loan program regulations. When this project is complete, 1,200 pages of text will have been deleted and the number of required forms reduced by almost 30 percent. We have also joined with the other service center agencies in a common Internet web site where customers of FSA, Rural Development, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service can download and complete the forms needed to participate in many agency programs and services (see http://intranet.fsa.usda.gov/dam/ffasforms/forms.html).
Page 454 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have devoted a considerable amount of time addressing the past and present condition of FSA farm loans and progress made. Now I would like to turn to the future.
BEGINNING FARMERS
Any discussion of the future of agriculture must include beginning farmers since they are the future of farming. There is keen interest in this issue, and rightfully so. In 1992, the Agriculture Credit Improvement Act established special programs, and targeted specific FSA loan funding for beginning farmers. The 1996 farm bill continued the targeting of funds, and increased the amount of loan funds targeted to beginning farmers. As a result of these provisions, FSA has provided assistance totaling $3.5 billion to more than 45,000 beginning farmers and ranchers since 1993. While these statistics indicate the program is being used, FSA is not able to loan all the funds the law requires to be targeted to beginning farmers. This should come as no surprise given the current state of the farm economy. When even established farmers are struggling financially. It is extremely difficult for someone with modest financial resources to get started in farming, and it often takes much more than a low-interest FSA loan for a beginning farmer to be successful. An advisory committee on beginning farmers and ranchers has been established in accordance with the 1992 Act, and it has provided suggestions of new and different ways to assist beginning farmers and ranchers.
REVISIT 1996 FARM BILL PROVISIONS
Mr. Chairman, as you consider a new farm bill, there are two areas of the 1996 farm bill that I would like to bring to your attention. As I mentioned earlier, certain provisions in that Act have reduced program abuse and resulted in improved loan repayment rates and a stronger loan portfolio. However, Mr. Chairman, there is one provision in particular that I call to your attention. As amended by the 1996 Act, section 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) imposes a lifetime ban from FSA loans for anyone who has an FSA farm loan debt forgiven. Certainly there must be limitations to avoid program abuses such as the ''revolving door'' situation I described earlier. However, you may wish to consider whether a different approach is possible—one that will prevent the abuse targeted by the 1996 change, but allow farmers who have had FSA farm loan debt forgiven to have another opportunity to become eligible for FSA loans in the future.
Page 455 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second provision from the 1996 farm bill that I mention is operating loan term limits. A limitation on the length of time a person may receive FSA farm operating loans was imposed by the Agriculture Credit Improvement Act of 1992, and substantially amended by section 611of the 1996 farm bill. Implementation of this provision was subsequently suspended, through December 31, 2002, by section 255 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act (ARPA) of 2000. The statement of managers accompanying the ARPA conference report noted that the provision was suspended until debate on it could occur as a part of development of the new farm bill. It is possible that a farmer reaching the term limit under economic conditions like those today may have done everything right and still be unable to get private sector financing. The committee may wish to review this provision further.
NEW ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Mr. Chairman, I have been requested to alert the Committee to other issues that may warrant attention as a new farm bill is developed. I appreciate the opportunity to submit these items for your consideration.
The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act amended the CONACT to require that FSA accept a projected repayment ability to make an Emergency Loan or EM loans, if the available collateral is not adequate to secure the loan. The result is FSA is making EM loans without adequate tangible collateral. This marks a return to past policies which resulted in multi-billion dollar losses. When the GAO removed the high-risk designation from FSA Farm Loan Programs, they cited efforts by FSA and by Congress to put safeguards in place to reduce the potential for waste and abuse. The GAO also stated that ''USDA and the Congress need to continue to monitor the effects of the positive actions already taken to ensure that improvements in the financial integrity of the farm loan programs continue.'' To make a loan based on the applicant's projected repayment ability re-introduces a high risk factor into the program. There is again potential for significant loan losses which will, in turn increase loan subsidy rates and program costs. Beyond the fiscal impact, one could question the benefit of this provision to farmers. It allows farmers to borrow beyond the point of any remaining equity they may have, so that if they aren't able to recover from the disaster, they literally walk away with nothing.
Page 456 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The issue of Shared-Appreciation agreements is one that I am sure some of the Committee members are familiar with. These agreements were entered into as a part of the process of writing down or writing-off then Farmers Home Administration (now FSA) debts under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1987. A significant number of these agreements are now coming due. Under the current economic conditions, many farmers may not be able to pay the amount due under their agreement. FSA has taken extensive administrative action to mitigate the impact of these agreements. However, even with deferral of payments and development of longer-term repayment schedules, some farmers will not be able to keep the agreement and will face liquidation. Any additional relaxation of the requirements of these agreements will require legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is another situation I want to bring to the Committee's attention. As we help borrowers deal with financial problems, especially those beyond their control, we strive to be positive and pro-active. One action taken to help farmers through tough times is the deferral of a loan installment to the end of the loan. This is an action that has been taken primarily to help borrowers through weather-related cash shortfalls. However, in 1998 and 1999, FSA also provided this option to farmers who could not pay installments due to low commodity prices. These installments were deferred to the end of the loan in the belief that the during the remaining term of the loan, the borrower would recover and be in a position to restructure, refinance, or otherwise pay the deferred installment. As of March 31 of this year, 15,862 borrowers had these deferrals on one or more loans. Continued prices at current levels will mean that many of these borrowers may not repay the remaining balance when the loans mature. Current plans are to utilize the existing loan servicing authorities in the regulations to address these situations, limiting account liquidations.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way since 1987, and even since 1996, but success is a journey, not a destination and we still have a long, challenging trip ahead. We look forward to working with the Committee as you wrestle with the issues I have raised today, and other complex farm lending issues as well. This concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Page 457 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today and I will be happy to respond to your questions.
Statement of Dale Leighty
Thank you Chairman Lucas and other members of this subcommittee for holding these important hearings on ag credit issues today. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the House Agriculture Committee's efforts in pursuing a fourth consecutive farm aid package. ICBA has lobbied for and supported each farm aid package over the last several years, so we want to express our sincere appreciation to you and other members of Congress. We believe the economic assistance was necessary to help stabilize the financial viability of many farmers and ranchers.
My name is Dale Leighty, and I serve as the chairman of ICBA's Agriculture-Rural America Committee and I am also the president of the First National Bank of Las Animas in Las Animas, Colorado. Ours is an $100 million asset bank and with approximately $75 million in loans, most of which are agricultural credits. Our town has 2,500 people and our county has 5,500 residents.
Mr. Chairman, the ICBA, with two-thirds of our member banks located in small communities of under 10,000 population, has a long standing interest in ensuring credit availability to our Nation's farmers, small businessmen and women and other consumers in our Nation's rural communities. ICBA is the only national trade organization that exclusively represents the interests of our Nation's community banks
This hearing is very timely for a couple of reasons. First, obviously, is the need to rewrite the farm bill during the 107th Congress since the current bill expires in 2002 and there is great uncertainty about the future for many farm families. Unfortunately, farmers today face the ''triple whammy'' of despairingly low prices, sharply rising energy and input costs and an unlevel playing field in the international trade arena. Therefore, we urge Congress to develop farm bill legislation that will work hand in hand with an aggressive U.S. trade policy initiative because what we do in our domestic farm policy must be interwoven with our broader national trade goals for American agriculture.
Page 458 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This agenda must entail as broad access as possible for our farmers to the markets of other Nations and it must lead to the dismantling of trade barriers, export subsidies and other trade distorting practices engaged in by Europe, Japan and other countries. In fact, the committee may find it appropriate to revisit farm policy after completion of important trade initiatives over the next few years to ensure our farmers have all necessary tools to compete on a level playing field.
Strengthening the Farm Safety Net
From our perspective, what you do as a committee on a farm aid package for this year and then in subsequent long-term farm policy will impact the agricultural credit situation of our Nation's farmers and ranchers as much as other elements of a farm bill credit title.
The policies you set forth in the new farm bill will affect not only family farmers and ranchers but also thousands of community banks across the Nation and the communities that depend on them. Therefore, we look forward to working with you on the important challenges that impact our farm customers and our industry.
In order to rejuvenate American agriculture we believe several policies should be pursued including some which lie outside the bounds of a new farm bill. We believe the short term actions Congress should pursue include: 1) quickly adopting a new farm aid package; 2) passage of a farm bill with counter-cyclical income mechanisms; 3) providing full funding and new program authorities for USDA guaranteed loan programs; 4) complimenting domestic farm programs with an aggressive U.S. trade policy; and 5) adopting new policies that attract capital and business opportunities to rural America. This latter recommendation has a number of specific aspects which my testimony will address.
Quickly Adopting A New Farm Aid Package
We believe it would be appropriate for Congress to quickly adopt a farm aid package that provides similar levels of assistance for those crops and commodities needing assistance as Congress adopted last year. Another round of economic assistance before Congresses passes the new farm bill will help producers offset the impact of extremely low farm prices and keep their cash flows acceptable to lenders. ICBA has supported these farm aid packages because we believe they are necessary to prevent an agricultural credit crisis that could have developed in the absence of such assistance.
Page 459 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We recognize that ultimately farmers need to earn their income from the market to be viable, but a number of factors outside the control of farmers, including events in the broader economy and on the world stage, coalesced to drive down farm prices and dramatically reduce our farm exports. We have also recognized that many of the farm trade issues, so important to agriculture's health, will take considerable time to work out as part of the world trade negotiations. USDA's recent supply and demand figures indicate it will be another tough year for many farmers. Farm prices for many commodities will remain low due to continued large carryover levels for most major commodities.
A Farm Bill with Counter-Cyclical Income Mechanisms
For the past couple of years ICBA has urged Congress to adopt a counter cyclical farm income mechanism to allow payments to fluctuate inversely with commodity prices. This approach would automatically provide farmers with payments in years of extremely low prices and thus avoid the need of future ad hoc farm aid packages.
We recognize the difficulty the committees will have in working out the specific details of a new counter cyclical farm program but we believe a move in this direction, perhaps coupled with some form of AMTA payments, would be appropriate and help sustain farm incomes until market prices recover and we work our way through the persistently thorny trade briar patch.
The new budget baseline provides roughly $80 billion to agriculture's baseline over the next decade and a minimum of $12.5 billion for the 2001 and 2002 crop years. Last year ICBA suggested a special fund be set up as part of a multi-year budget that would provide increased money to agriculture in low-price years. We believe the new ''reserve fund'' mentioned in the budget is consistent with a counter-cyclical approach and can provide funding flexibility in the next farm bill to boost farm income in low-price years.
Predictability is Key: I believe what everyone, including both farmers and their lenders, are trying to achieve is a greater degree of predictability so that farmers and their lenders don't have to rely on annual, ad-hoc disaster packages. That wasn't a good recipe for crop insurance and it isn't a good recipe for farm financing either. More predictability will allow lenders and their farm customers to make timely business and financing decisions and to have a better grasp—earlier—of cash flow statements. Producers and their lenders need to have the ability to make three to five year crop projections based on the known amount of income available and this level of income needs to be sufficient to allow farmers to meet their debt obligations and family living needs.
Page 460 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We note Congress has considered adopting Farm, Fish and Ranch Risk Management (FFARRM) accounts that would allow producers to defer taxes on up to 20 percent of their net income for up to five years. Congress could remove the five-year limitation so all farmers could place a portion of this money into a longer term retirement account rather than mandating a forced withdrawal. We believe these accounts should be limited to federally insured depository institutions to protect farmers and their finances.
Increase Risk Management Tools: We recommend Congress adopt of goal of eventually making crop insurance mandatory for producers who receive government payments, just as conservation compliance is today. A short timeline could be established in law for when this mandatory compliance would kick in, contingent upon Congress being satisfied with the performance of the newly enhanced program.
We are pleased that the new crop insurance program has been substantially enhanced. Crop insurance is an important cornerstone to a strong farm safety net. From a lender's standpoint, crop insurance is especially important because it better enables producers to repay their loans and withstand economic adversity when major weather disasters strike.
The program needs to be attractive enough to sustain high levels of farmer participation so Congress does not feel inclined to pass annual ad hoc disaster programs, which only further detracts from participation and raises budget costs. So we should evaluate how crop insurance functions over the next couple of years and if it is performing satisfactorily, then we should then mandate its compliance within certain guidelines.
USDA Guaranteed Loan Programs. ICBA recommends the next farm bill provide sufficient funding and flexibility for USDA guaranteed loans programs. One recommendation for the next farm bill's credit title is to include language that provides a ''cushion'' against running out of appropriated funding. An option would be to provide for a back-up line of credit to the Treasury for $10-$20 million that could be tapped by the Secretary if the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Agriculture and Appropriations committees agree that allocation of the funds are necessary. This would be to protect against these funds running out due to unusually high demand. This small amount would leverage well over $1 billion in additional guaranteed loans.
Page 461 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In recent years Congress had to pass supplemental appropriations bills to provide additional funding for guaranteed loans while farmers were trying to get financing to get their crops planted. Farmers were complaining to bankers because they couldn't get their production loans and bankers were being told that there was no more funding available until Congress and the President agreed to supplemental appropriations legislation, which at times becomes embroiled in non-related issues.
Let's keep in mind as Congress considers ways to strengthen the farm safety net that guaranteed loan programs offer the most ''bang for the buck'' because private sector lenders are providing the loan funds, not the government. However, when these programs run out of money it severely undermines their credibility and increases frustration in the countryside. The FSA loan portfolio has witnessed improved performance with direct loan delinquency down to its lowest level in more than two decades. And, importantly from the standpoint of lenders, is the loan delinquency for guaranteed loans is at an all-time low of 1.83 percent.
We offer the following recommendations for FSA loan programs:
Provide a permanent back-up or contingency funding mechanism to provide uninterrupted program operation when congressionally appropriated funds become exhausted;
Provide the Secretary greater flexibility in transferring funds between programs especially in times of greater funding needs;
Permanently eliminate the 15-year limit on eligibility by allowing lenders and farmers to determine when they need guaranteed loans since private sector lenders provide the loan funds under the guaranteed programs;
Increase the loan limit, at least on a case-by-case basis, on FSA loans to better reflect the needs of modern-day agriculture. The loan limit was recently increased slightly and indexed to influation, but many lenders complain it is still not adequate;
Page 462 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Consideration of providing a greater interest rate subsidy when national interest rates increase; and
Continue streamlining USDA's direct and guaranteed loan paperwork and enhance computer/online access to all necessary USDA documents.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to go into more depth on a few additional suggestions. These would be as follows:
Aggie Bonds: Allow FSA guarantees to be used with Aggie Bonds which will lower the effective interest rates and allow better cash flows for young, beginning and marginal farmers. The farm population is aging. Limits on farm ownership funds has limited the ability of the next generation to get started in farming. FSA procedure prohibits the use of guaranteed loans in conjunction with many Beginning Farmer programs conducted in various states because the funds are generated by tax free bonds. The use of tax free funds by guaranteed lenders would be a valuable tool to help these producers obtain rates and terms that they can meet. This prohibition from financing in conjunction with tax free funds obstructs FSA's ability to work with participation and other types of joint financing which involve these Aggie bones and other tax free bonds. Therefore, we urge you to revise statutes to allow the use of guaranteed loans with tax free bonds.
For Aggie Bonds to become widely available to more farm states and farmers there is another fix is also necessary before the above change can be fully effective: exempt Aggie Bonds from the Congressionally set state volume cap formulas on industrial revenue bonds. Several states often cannot meet the demand for Aggie Bonds because they do not have sufficient volume cap to meet overall demand for tax exempt bonds. Other states would like to start offering Aggie Bonds but are effectively prevented from doing so because they already have more demand for other bond uses than their state volume cap can accommodate. Most of the private-activity, tax exempt bond volume is used by corporations for manufacturing or for multi-family housing projects. These bonds are typically issued for millions of dollars, underwritten and sold to investors. In contrast, Aggie Bonds are used by young farm and ranch families and cannot exceed $250,000 per bond. These bonds are typically held by the local lender such as a local bank. The Aggie Bond programs could be much more effective and useable to a new generation of farmers if they did not have to compete with large industrial manufacturing and housing projects under the current Federal guidelines. We encourage the House and Senate agriculture committees to work with the other appropriate committees in Congress to ensure that these promising changes quickly become a reality.
Page 463 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Interest Assist Program: The Interest Assist (IA) program expires in September 2002. The program can be a valuable tool in helping farmers by buying down their interest rate. However, some lenders have complained that it is being abused by some lenders who use it as a marketing tool to attract loans away from other lenders. Therefore, the program may need to have some additional conditions placed upon its use.
Guaranteed Farm Storage Loans: We recommend Congress adopt a guaranteed lending program for on-farm storage in addition to the existing direct loan program as part of the new farm bill. Guaranteed loans are a more effective use of the government funds than are direct funds and currently there is only a direct program being offered. This arrangement competes against loans the private sector could be making and we believe there are more cost-effective ways to accomplish the goals of this program.
Blanket Assignment Form: ICBA recommends Congress allow borrowers to execute a single blanket assignment form to assign all present and future payments to their lenders. This would reduce paperwork burdens by both borrowers and lenders and speed up decision making. In recent years a large number of new programs, including varius ''ad hoc'' programs, have been implemented to distribute agency funds to farmers. For each new program, FSA and other lenders must process a new assignment form. Generating a new form for each program creates an unnecessary burden for farmers, lenders and FSA staff. A blanket or single assignment form assigning all present and future FSA program payments, including payments derived from ''ad hoc'' programs that are not in existence on the date the assignment is executed would address this problem. The assignment could assigned annually.
Other Farm Policy Issues
Enhance Conservation Initiatives & the CRP: ICBA believes that conservation should continue to be an important cornerstone of new farm policy. In this regard we believe that more producer choice should be provided to farmers in terms of choosing the length of their Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. Producers should be allowed to choose between three-year, five-year, and seven-year contracts so that land does not have to be idled for 10-year periods, which may cause too much economic disruption.
Page 464 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Addressing Food Aid & World Hunger Needs: It is also important that we continue our focus on efforts to aid hungry and malnourished people in other countries in a constructive and positive way. Food aid commitments to needy foreign nations should be increased, and the functionality of these programs should be reviewed to assess ways to improve cost efficiencies.
We believe the private sector, including the World Bank and regional development banks such as the Inter-American and Asian Development Banks can help assist in developing the infrastructure necessary to allow efficient food transportation to hungry people in poor countries. Proper monitoring and oversight mechanisms also should be established to help ensure that food shipments get to the people in needy countries and are not diverted.
Improving Access to Foreign Markets: Since free and fair trade is so important to our farmers in terms of receiving a profit from the market, we believe several actions are in order:
Passing trade negotiating authority;
Exempting agriculture from unilateral economic trade sanctions;
Eliminating unfair export subsidies and trade tariffs of competitors through World Trade Organization negotiations;
Pursuing ongoing transparency and eventual elimination of State Trading Enterprises and
Ensuring that international regulation of genetically modified food products are based on sound science, not politics.
Recently, USTR ambassador Zoellick indicates the U.S. is currently only party to two of the 130 free trade agreements that now exist. Given the state of American agriculture, we cannot afford to be shut out of preferential trade agreements while allowing our trade competitors to reap the benefits.
Page 465 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Diversifying Rural America
Mr. Chairman, one important aspect of strengthening the farm safety net involves helping rural communities diversify their sources of income and their local economies. More and more farm
families appear to be relying on off-farm income to support the farming enterprise. USDA statistics indicate that 90 percent of the total income of farm households comes from off-farm sources. Of course, this is an average and a significant portion of the farm population relies just on farm income.
Yet trends indicate that counties which have relied largely upon agriculture as the main industry lost significant population in the last decade. For example, the FDIC's first quarter 2000 Regional Outlook report on the Kansas City region highlighted these troubling trends. Only about one quarter of the 400 rural counties studied were growing. The recent 2000 census revealed that while the general population grew 13 percent in the 1990's, 676 counties, primarily rural counties, lost population. Those counties losing population are largely dependent on agriculture. This shows the importance of diversifying our rural economies which will help keep people in rural America and will help farm families have additional sources of income thereby reducing the need to rely solely on farm programs for survival in rural America. The more diversified economies in rural America appear to be the most viable for the long term.
Maintaining a stable population base in rural areas is important because many demographers say that at some point the populations of communities can fall below a critical mass, destining them
for an irreversible decline because they lack the human resources needed to remain viable. The per capita cost of providing services becomes too expensive. Ultimately keeping people, leaders,
workers, and citizens in rural communities is essential to keeping a healthy rural social infrastructure which is the foundation of a diverse economic base in our rural communities.
Page 466 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Maintaining the social infrastructure in terms of human resources is key to maintaining a viable physical infrastructure—adequate roads, schools, health care services, utilities, Main Street businesses and, yes, locally owned community banks focused on meeting local financial needs.
From the standpoint of the community banks in these rural areas, the loss of population, with its subsequent result of fewer depositors and fewer deposits, is a critical problem since fewer deposits mean fewer funds available to make loans to local businesses and citizens and therefore less investment in the physical and social infrastructure of rural communities.
We Offer the Following Suggestions to Help Diversify our Rural Communities.
Increase Deposit Insurance & Index it to Inflation—Many rural banks are having difficulty growing their core deposit base and thus meeting the lending needs of their rural communities. There are a number of factors at play, but many consequences resulting from these factors could be substantially reduced by doubling deposit insurance coverage and indexing it to inflation. American agriculture is undergoing dramatic changes resulting in fewer and larger farms as well as larger corporate and agribusiness interests. These larger farms and larger agribusinesses, especially at the local level, deal with considerably larger and larger sums of money on a routine basis. Yet, deposit insurance hasn't been raised since 1980 and its value has been eroded in half.
As we all know, millions of retirement accounts have grown well beyond $100,000. The Congress has just increased the attractiveness of educational savings accounts which can now grow to meet the skyrocketing costs of a college education and again the $100,000 level disadvantages community banks. Doubling FDIC deposit insurance and indexing it to inflation will help ensure it keeps up with the savings needs of rural Americans, including farmers who will be looking to retire. In addition, the depositors of many rural banks are older and when they die, their deposits are typically inherited by their children who now live in larger cities. Thus, these funds leave our rural communities.
Page 467 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The result is that money which could have served as lendable funds for business investments and other loans in the community is leaving the rural communities. This only exacerbates the cycle less investment and opportunity in rural communities and more population flight. New funding sources must therefore be found by the community bank to make up for this loss of depositors and deposits. Increasing the deposit insurance level and indexing it to inflation would be a quick and efficient way to immediately help infuse more funds into our rural areas and ultimately benefit rural citizens, including farm families that depend on off-farm income for survival.
Additional large securities firms like Merrill Lynch and Solomon Smith Barney have moved almost $100 billion under the FDIC without paying any premiums and since they own more than one bank they are offering coverage levels well in excess of $100,000.
Increasing funding for USDA's Business and Industry program —We were pleased that congress last year provided the USDA B&I program with a significant funding increase of 50 percent, bringing the budget to $1.5 billion for the current fiscal year. This program lends money to any rural business that provides economic opportunity to people living in districts with populations of less than 50,000 people, including gas stations, factories, and other local businesses. USDA business loans reportedly saved or created more than 29,000 jobs last year.
This is good news for banks in their efforts to help slow-growing rural markets. We are told that approximately 400 banks are currently taking part in the program and more are trying to get in. The main problem is that the B&I program is still under funded as last year almost $1 billion in guaranteed loans, for 376 projects, could not be approved due to lack of funding.
Given the statistics that show the loss of population in many agriculturally dependent counties and the need to diversify our rural economies to also strengthen our farm economy, we believe that providing more funds for the B&I program could be a very cost-efficient approach to strengthen the rural safety net and the farm economy. Remember that the lenders are the ones providing the funding, the government's expense comes only in cases of a loan default. We would also suggest that the B&I program significantly target small businesses to ensure smaller rural projects receive the same consideration for funding as larger rural projects.
Page 468 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the Center for the Study of Rural America, headquartered in the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, is a national rural outreach committed to illuminating the issues and challenges facing rural America. In their recent national conferences, the Center has begun exploring the need to outline a broader rural policy that goes beyond only farm policy. Diversifying our rural economies is a key challenge in the 21st Century.
An additional issue the Center has examined is the need to bring more sources of equity capital to rural America to complement the debt financing offered by private-sector lenders. We welcome these explorations.
Oppose Expansion of Farm Credit System Lending Authorities
During a similar testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Farm Credit System's witness asked for new legislative authorities as Congress considers a new farm bill. FCS made a number of questionable and startling claims. I want to address a few of these issues in my testimony today and we will follow up with the committee to discuss the issue of FCS lending authorities in the days ahead.
FCS made the claim that their authorities remain basically unchanged since Congress enacted the Farm Credit Act of 1971—some thirty years ago. FCS also claimed that ''commercial banks, in effect, are now GSEs with virtually unlimited operating authority''. These claims are nonsense. Commercial banks are not considered to be GSEs or their equivalents by the capital markets. FCS also suggested that deposit insurance is equivalent or superior to their GSE status, the latter which provides low-cost funding and numerous tax exemptions. The cost of deposit insurance is borne by the banking industry through premium assessments unlike the privilege of being a GSE.
We remind the committee that FCS can borrow low cost funds from the capital markets due to their GSE status. While it is not explicitly guaranteed by the government, the capital markets believe it is safe to advance funds to the FCS at very favorable rates because the government would not allow a GSE to fail. This is true. FCS would have failed in the 1980's had Congress not passed three bailout bills including providing the FCS with a $4 billion line of credit to the government. At the same time that Congress protected the FCS against failure, hundreds of community banks were allowed to go under. So keep in mind that deposit insurance protects the savings of insured depositors, it does not protect commercial banks against failure. In turn, uninsured depositors can be at risk when a community bank fails. But the FCS has been protected against failure.
Page 469 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FCS in their May 16 testimony also seemed to suggest that FCA was an obstacle to reducing regulatory burden. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In fact, FCA has been a ''partner'' to the FCS in seeking to expand their authorities through regulatory fiat. FCS has expanded the scope of FCS lending and the customers eligible to borrow through ''scope and eligibility'' regulations adopted in 1997. These regulations included loans to farm related businesses, even those businesses which may only receive a minority of their income from providing farm related services. FCA has expanded housing loan authorities for FCS; loan participation authorities even to the extent of allowing FCS to ''buy'' whole loans through 100-percent participations. This enacts by regulation what Congress rejected as a legislative proposal. As you know Mr. Chairman, FCA is also now reviewing a major proposal which will also expand FCS lending opportunities through ''national charters'' which we have testified on and which we oppose for many reasons.
An example of other FCA regulatory initiatives include: a final rule allowing FCS service corporations to sell stock to non-System persons or entities; elimination of over three-dozen regulations considered ''burdensome or unnecessary''; repeal of the requirement for FCA prior approval of FCS activities; elimination of requirements for FCS institutions to disseminate quarterly and annual reports to shareholders; allowing FCS institutions to develop their own lending policies and underwriting standards; and elimination of borrower stock purchase and borrower rights requirements for loans sold into the secondary market. These are just a few of the many examples of regulatory relief the FCS has been provided. There has been no lack of proposals made by the FCA on behalf of the FCS.
In fact, in announcing these regulations, which reduced FCA oversight, reduced regulatory burden and often expanded powers of FCS institutions, FCA made several statements like this one: ''This is yet another step in the FCA's continuing efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on FCS institutions''. In fact, FCA requested in1998 for commenters to ''identify any FCA regulations or policies that duplicate other requirements, are ineffective, or impose burdens that are greater than the benefits received''. They then extended that comment period for an additional two months.
Page 470 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FCS has also received expanded lending authorities through legislation. An example of some of these legislative expansions include: PL #99–108 (signed 12–23–85) which amended the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to expand the category of eligible rural utility borrowers; the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, PL #100–233; the Farm Credit Banks and Associations Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, PL #102–552, (signed 10–28–92) which expanded water and sewer lending authority for cooperatives; and the FCS Ag Export & Risk Management Act, PL #103–376 (signed 5–10–1996) allowing FCS relief in numerous areas.
We believe it is time to stop expanding FCS lending activities. FCS appears to be trying to elicit sympathy from the agriculture committees. We would object to FCS being given authority to take away loans being made by the private sector through their tax and funding advantages. This would not expand the economic base of rural America or bring new businesses into our rural areas. FCS did not describe their proposal for ''value-added agriculture'' nor did they define the scope of this proposal. FCS did not suggest ways they would be willing to work cooperatively with local lenders in the local communities to truly further rural development.
We note that the FCS has made net profits of well over $1 billion for more than a decade. In addition, the degree of their lending to young, beginning and small farmers is suspect, especially in terms of utilizing the USDA guaranteed loan programs. USDA economists have reported on the lack of use of this program by FCS, a program that obviously targets borrowers who need help in the form of a guarantee from a lender in order to obtain credit. The FCS's feet need to be held to the fire in terms of being made more accountable. In addition, the OFI program, whereby ''Other Financial Institutions' can obtain funding from the FCS to make loans in their communities, has been made a virtual non-factor by the FCS and has too many constraints placed upon it by statute.
Page 471 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If FCS truly wants competition, they should be proposing ways to make the OFI program more workable and we do have a number of suggestions. Also, FCS institutions should be willing to have the same tax responsibilities as do commercial banks. Many community banks pay taxes at the highest tax rates while FCS taxes are minimal if not non-existent. In fact, many FCS institutions have restructured themselves in order to avoid paying taxes. If commercial banks had the same tax advantages as FCS lenders, banks could also build up their capital more quickly and pass on these savings to their borrowers in the form of even lower interest rates. So if we want to discuss competition, let's also discuss whether the playing field is level. we've seen what happens in our trade markets when the playing field is not level.
Mr. Chairman, FCS has not, to our knowledge, proposed any ways that commercial banks and the FCS institutions can work together to expand the economic base of our rural communities. What they seem to be asking you for is the ability to leverage their government derived privileges to drive out private sector lending activities from our rural areas. This is not constructive. This obviously causes us great concerns and is one reason why we would oppose expanding FCS powers in conjunction with passing a new farm bill.
Summary
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the Committee's efforts on behalf of American agriculture and rural America. Strengthening the farm safety net by passing a new farm bill that includes counter-cyclical income support mechanisms and greater business investment opportunities in our rural areas are essential ingredients to a viable future for many farm families. Additional longer-term solutions involving successful trade negotiations will also be very important to rural America's future. ICBA and its Agriculture-Rural America Committee looks forward to working with the congressional agriculture committees to accomplish these goals. Thank you.
Testimony presented by Tuskegee University
Page 472 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(In cooperation with other 1890 Land Grant Universities and Community Based Organizations, including the Rural Coalition and Federation of Southern Cooperatives)
Agricultural Credit Conditions and lending Activities and programs of agricultural lenders
Recommendations to improve credit availability and services to U.S. farmers and ranchers
The following testimony is presented to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research on behalf of the Tuskegee University Small Farm Rural Economic Development Center and the family of 1890 Land Grant Institutions and Community Based Organizations, including the Rural Coalition and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives as it relates to access to credit by minority and small scale farmers.
The family of 1890 Land Grant Institutions and Community Based Organizations referenced above represent culturally diverse organizations of small-scale farmers of all races and in every region of the Nation. We represent minority and other small-scale farmers. Among them are African-American, Native American, Hispanic and Latino, as well as Asian and other minority groups.
Tuskegee University belongs to the family of 1890 Land Grant Universities and work collaboratively with community based organizations. Tuskegee University's mission as well as its partners focus on the minority and small-scale, limited resource, and specifically, the African American farmer. It is somewhat ironic that the status of the minority and small-scale farmer particularly the African American farmer is discussed under the aegis of landowner rights and responsibilities given that they have had these rights for the better part of the 20th Century. In outline form for example:
The African American farmer as does all minority and small-scale farmers have:
Page 473 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The right to farm: at their height in 1920, there were 925, 708 African American farmers in the United States. By 1997, this number had declined by 98 percent, to 18,451
The right to obtain and retain land: land has productive, economic, social and spiritual components attached to it; yet, no group has lost so much of their land over time than the African American farmer. In 1910, these farmers controlled 15,961,506 acres in full ownership; by 1997 there were only 1,095, 093 acres in full ownership, a decline of 93 percent
The right to access to financial and program support: no group has qualified, based on their limited resource status, for UDSA financial and program support, Commercial Bank or other farm credit system support, but such support has been denied them as documented by the United States Commission on Civil Rights Report: The Decline of the Black Farming in America (1982); and the more recent Report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms: A Time to Act (1998), and the USDA: Implementation of the Civil Rights Action Team Report at USDA (1997). The criteria used by the USDA to determine eligibility systematically discriminated against the minority and small-scale farmer because it does not take into account the low financial status of young beginning small farmers in comparison to larger scale farmers who having accumulated wealth over the past 400 years.
The right to equity: in terms of research dollars spent on their needs, as well as, equity in review by the local committee system. The sources cited above say this is still not occurring.
The minority and small-scale family farmers share a strong belief that the abundance of the food system should be shared by all, and that a widely-held system of land ownership is fundamental to a democratic society.
All minority and small-scale farmers have employed determination and creativity to remain on the land. They have cooperatively derived new methods to diversify production, produce value-added products and enter new markets. Despite the fact that a majority of the minority and small-scale family farmers have been underserved or denied access to the programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, particularly credit, and have been victim to irresponsible commodity, trade and supply management policies, they have worked diligently together to develop creative ways for survival.
Page 474 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, minority and other small farmers remain also on the wrong side of the digital divide, lacking access to computers and training to keep records and manage finances and gain access to information and e-commerce opportunities. In addition, Federal programs provide few resources to assist farmers who seek to improve their marketing methods.
The United States Government has: The responsibility: to see that these rights are enforced. There must be equitable access to credit as well as equitable delivery of programs and services in order to provide a safety net for all minority and small-scale farmer, especially in the area of credit.
Supporting Small Farms of the New Millennium
The current structure of agriculture programs strongly favors large producers over small. Recent increases in the payment limitation and return to annual and untargeted disaster relief subsidies, while politically feasibly as emergency response, have enlarged and redirected farm support payments to even-larger farmers.
These policy changes have resulted in a continually declining proportion of agriculture spending supporting the small farm sector. In addition, many minority and other small producers who do not produce program crops have not participated in agriculture programs at all.
The farmers are dependent upon declining sources and access to Federal credit programs, leaving their families in a continuing cycle of debt without any real access to markets. Farms are managed for survival rather than sustainability or viability, and for many of these producers, crop insurance is unaffordable, inaccessible and does not serve the needs of farmers in non-program or diversified operations.
At the same time, minority and other small farmers remain also on the wrong side of the digital divide, lacking access to computers and training to keep records and manage finances and gain access to information and e commerce opportunities. In addition, Federal programs provide few resources to assist farmers who seek to improve their marketing skills. The point here is that if lack of access to capital coupled with the challenges outlined above, it makes it extremely difficult for the small-scale family farmer to sustain a viable farm operation.
Page 475 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I. Equitable Access to USDA Programs
Additional measures are necessary to assure that USDA programs reach all eligible producers, especially those who are historically underserved. Participation in loan, commodity and other programs remains low among minority producers and few incentives are provided to those who operate the programs to do better. At the same time, producers who have not previously participated in various loans, commodity and other programs should have the opportunity to do so.
Recommendations: Establish Target Participation Rates for minority and small producers in all programs, including loans and commodity programs, and publish a yearly county-by-county report of participation.
This program is modeled on a provision passed in the 1987 Agriculture Credit Act, which instituted target participation rates for minority producers in farm ownership and operating loans.
A percentage of minority producers compared to other producers are calculated in each county. Participation in credit programs is then compared to the number of producers in the county.
Target participation rates can be an effective tool in evaluating the need for additional outreach in areas where minority producers are concentrated. A similar formula for small farmers could also be applied.
2. Provision of Equitable Services to All Producers—Congress, in its consideration of the Waiver of the Statute of Limitations, and related efforts to settle old discrimination complaints against USDA, reviewed equitable program access that began during the farm bills of 1985 and 1990. We propose that the committee again review accomplishments, and with groups like ours, continue to identify key issues to secure equitable access. A system is also needed to monitor current programs to ensure that they are fairly serving minority and other small farmers. The target participation rate standards recommended above could form the basis of such a system; it has been long recommended the establishment of a minority farm registry, which has been approved by OMB but which remains halted within USDA.
Page 476 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, election procedures and participation in USDA county committees remains inequitable and may inhibit the equitable allocation of resources, particularly loans among minority, beginning and limited resource farmers. We urge this committee to work with us to find the appropriate place to address this issue both in the farm bill debate and in the legislation.
New Research and Background on Accomplishments of Small Farmers in the Millennium
Small farmers envision a future for their enterprises and their sector. Our recent efforts have yielded information, ideas, and experiences to help develop small farm potential in the new millennium.
Research Findings on the Needs of Small Farms
In preparation for the 2002 farm bill debate, the Rural Coalition, Missouri Rural Crises Center and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund have been working together on a grassroots research effort to obtain policy input from limited resource, minority small independent agricultural producers. With assistance from a dedicated group of young researchers in the Missouri Action Research Connection based at the University of Missouri, and support from the US Programs of Oxfam America, there will soon be a complete documentation of findings.
One of the goals of the research was to learn more about the dreams and aspirations of small farmers. The majority had simple visions of farms relatively the same size of what they currently have, only more viable than their current operations. Many participants noted no one had ever asked them before about their dreams. A large number saw cooperatives and collaborative methods as integral to their view of agriculture.
The research methods, including listening sessions, focus groups, surveys and dialogue, aimed to learn more about farmers experience and needs related to agriculture programs and services. The input of diverse groups—including small and minority farmers of diverse cultures—have provided on agriculture and USDA programs and services informs the policy proposals they prepared. It is our shared goals to assure that our diverse group of small farmers and farm-workers have the opportunity to have their specific program needs and policy proposals heard as the farm bill is debated. Final results will incorporate input from over 1500 limited resource, minority and small farmers across the U.S.
Page 477 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regardless of size, race or region, farmers echoed common concerns regarding food safety, security and the importance of a fair price. Their input reflected a strong desire to make a living from the land through protection and promotion of family farms, strong rural communities and a healthy environment. Overwhelmingly, they identified and underscored the important role of their cooperatives and community-based organizations in strengthening farms and supporting a strong community based food system. They also articulated the need for more access to outreach and technical assistance provided through their community-based organizations.
Minority and other small farmers noted that limited access to accurate and timely information was a problem in all regions and areas of production. Many expressed the feeling that information regarding market prices and government programs is not made readily available to small farmers and that information that is made available is not always relevant to their size or type of production.
Research among all populations of minority farmers (including African American, Asian and Latino) demonstrated they had little to no awareness of knowledge of USDA programs and services. As compared to other farmers represented among our members. The only groups of minority farmers who had greater awareness and familiarity with USDA programs, or who had participated in programs were in areas served by the Section 2501 Minority Outreach and Education Program established in the 1990 farm bill.
Access to USDA programs and services, especially loan programs, were limited for all small producers due to barriers including program vs. non-program crops, size of production, location and language. Many failed to mention USDA agencies at all when asked who helped them; often their positive or negative opinions of USDA were based on their interaction with a single person.
The research shows that small farmers want to be involved in the development and implementation of agricultural programs. They emphasized that programs must be more responsive to local needs, more easily accessible and use locally relevant conduits for communication. They clearly and independently over and over stated the need for a flexible small farm program that met a multiplicity of needs of independent food producers. Likewise, they felt their needs would be better served with more support at the local level for their own community-based organizations and cooperatives to provide outreach and technical assistance.
Page 478 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The need for supply management through non-recourse loans and farmer owned grain reserve was voiced by those both who grow commodities and others. Most also exhibited a generosity of spirit, providing strong support for US Food Aid programs and food assistance to all who need it.
Small Farm Commission Research/Small and Limited-Resource Farm Issues
Small and limited-resource family farms are defined as farms on which the day-to-day labor management are provided by the farmer and/or the farm family who own the production or own or lease the productive assets. Further, small and limited-resource farms are those that earn a gross income from farming operations or more than $1,000 but less than $250,000 annually.
Small and limited-resource farms face challenges similar to those of all production agriculture operations. At issue is the availability of government assistance to these farms. Currently, they mainly receive assistance from the government for conservation cost-sharing and technical assistance, risk management, Federal loan programs, commodity programs, and loans for beginning farmers.
Participation by small and limited-resource farms in the general farm programs, particularly loan programs, described earlier in this report is constrained by several factors. The conditions and provisions of many of the Federal farm programs require basing payments to producers on a historical acreage of traditional commodity crops. Many small and limited-resource farms grow non-program crops, so their participation is limited. For example, a farmer who has no history of producing program crops is not eligible under the 1996 FAIR ACT to receive direct government assistance in the form of production flexibility contract payments. Also, provisions in some legislation prohibit farmers who have had debt forgiveness from receiving future USDA loans and/or credit assistance. In addition, conservation cost-sharing programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) specify that participants enter into a five-year contract to receive assistance. Many small and limited-resource farmers are excluded from effectively participating in potentially beneficial programs such as EQIP because they rent their land on an annual basis. This affects the financial status of minority producers of systematically denies equal access to farm programs which ultimately affects credit. Cash flow is essential to the minority and small-scale farmers just as it is to large-scale farmers. Access to support programs are necessary to achieve cash flow, which is ultimately analyzed by agricultural lenders to determine credit worthiness and repayment ability.
Page 479 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recommendation of the Commission (These recommendations are supported by entities represented in testimony today)
The Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture recognized the importance and value of the small family farm in production agriculture and rural communities. The Commission further recognizes the significant impact that government policy has on the economic condition of small family farms.
The Commission acknowledges the work of the National Commission on Small Farms. The National Commission on Small Farms was created in 1997 by order of USDA regulation to ''gather and analyze information regarding small U.S. farms and ranches and recommended to the Secretary of Agriculture a national strategy to ensure their continued viability in U.S. agriculture, including specific measures which could be adopted by the public, non-profit and private sectors to enhance the economic livelihood of small farms. Its work continues in the activities of USDA's Advisory Committee on Small Farms.
The Commission believes that the USDA Advisory Committee on Small Farms is well positioned to advise lawmakers on policy matters and should be the lead group in this issue area. The Commission also believes that it is the role of government to develop and fund programs that meet the special needs of small and limited-resource farmers. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that several specific areas warrant consideration by the Small Farms Advisory Committee as well as by legislators and policymakers.
The Commission recommends formalizing by congressional authority the work of the Small Farms Advisory Committee as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, providing appropriate staff and appropriations.
Areas for Consideration by the Committee
Assistance for Beginning Farmers. Currently, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) offers several loans for beginning farmers and ranchers. FSA provides guaranteed and direct farm ownership loans as well as guaranteed and direct farm-operating loans. FSA also provides a joint financing plan to beginning farmers that lends 50 percent of the amount financed at a reduced interest rate with other 50 percent or more provided by another lender. FSA also offers acquired farm property first to eligible beginning producers at the appraised market value. In addition, FSA has a Down Payment Farm ownership Payment Loan Program to assist farmers and ranchers in purchasing a farm. This program also provided retiring farmers with a means of transferring land to a future generation of farmers and ranchers. The Commission recommends examining existing state programs and the development of nationwide programs that facilitate established farmers in assisting beginning farmers.
Page 480 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To aid future generation of minority and small-scale procedures, a matching grant program could allow beginning farmers to build equity rather than debt. The matching funds may provide less incentive for beginning farmers to choose a debt-laden, capital-intensive approach to financing their farming operation.
Minority Small and/or Limited-Resource Farms Registry
The development of a voluntary directory of farms and ranches with cooperation from local agricultural agencies could help identify minority small and/or limited-resource farms in need of specific assistance.
Small-Farm Competitiveness
Funding programs such as the Outreach and Technical Assistance Program for Socially Disadvantaged and Minority Farmers (Sec.2501) program, the Farm Ownership Direct Loan Program, and the Farm Operating Direct Loan Program, at their maximum authorized levels may aid the competitiveness of the Nation's small and limited-resource farms. The appropriations for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program as well as the Rural Technology and Cooperative Development Center Grant program could be increased to serve additional under-served farms.
Financial assistance could be provided to help develop small-producer cooperatives that could allow smaller producers to pool capital and expertise to add value to their production and ultimately improve their income, which would ultimately improve credit worthiness.
Conclusions/Additional Recommendations:
1. Additional resources need to be redirected to the Small Farm Community for access
to all programs. Target Direct Loan and Guarantee Loan Program for additional funding to minority and small-scale producers. Agricultural credit programs currently proposed are increased by $765 million over last year. Total loan authorization level is $3.855 billion, which is the same as the President's request. A proportionate amount should be directed at minority and small-scale producers.
Page 481 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The USDA is the lender of last resort, however there are so many unwarranted requirements and stipulations placed on loans to small-scaled producers including liens on homes. The farm operation assets should be adequate. Non-farm assets should be distinguished from farm assets. Recommitment to USDA's mission as the ''lender of last resort,'' is needed; by focusing greater attention to serving credit needs of minority and small-scaled producers and beginning farmers.
Small-scaled farmers have a ''safety net necessity'' just as large farmers do. There is no program for small farmers. One recommendation would be to provide a new 'small Farms of the New Millennium'' support programs aimed at minority and small-scale producers. These producers would receive a minimum $10,000 subsidy per year.
Legislation should be proposed to repeal the provision that prohibit farmers who have previously had any ''debt forgiveness'' from receiving USDA loans or credit assistance. The debt collection and offsetting regulations have created unsolvable conditions for small farmers and left some with no options but bankruptcy.
Fair access and servicing of FSA credit programs
Adequate funding and fair access to credit programs vital to agriculture should be assured. Likewise, farmers should be assured that they are not denied access to FSA credit based on arbitrary time limits or prior debt forgiveness. The following are recommendations to support these priorities.
Establishment of clear and direct authority in direct and guaranteed credit and beginning farm programs
Funding of farm ownership and operating loan programs.
Prohibition on future debt forgiveness for farmers with write-down which occurred prior to April 4, 1996.
Family living and farm operating expenses.
Page 482 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Removal of time limits for FSA credit programs imposed in 1992.
Removal of the automatic ten-year shared appreciation agreement trigger.
Reinstatement of fairness in the debt servicing programs.
Waiver of offsets.
Renewal and extension of the use of target participation rates for USDA agriculture programs
The use of target participation rates to evaluation participation in programs and requirements for reporting of participation in direct, guaranteed and beginning farmer lending programs should be renewed and extended. Prior legislation to implement target participation rate monitoring and reporting for operating loans and farm ownership loans should be reported on and similar programs should be extended to all programs, including those for beginning farmers. The following are recommendations to support these priorities.
Calculate target participation rate for every county for each minority population compared to overall population, as established in 1987 Agriculture Credit Act. This information should be posted on the USDA web-site.
Participation rates should be published on the web-site comparing minority participation and overall participation in every program.
A report to Congress shall be done on the implementation of target participation rate in farm ownership and farm operating loans. This report should be published on the USDA web-site.
State by state and national compilations should also be reported for everything above.
Improved program equity, compliance, and public information
USDA should improve equitable access to all programs of the department; strengthen support for the efforts of community-based organizations and educational institutions to accomplish this access; collect of and disclose information on the participation rates of minority and other limited resource farmers in all structures, committees and programs of the department; extends the use of target participation rates for monitoring participation; establishes a minority farm registry; requires collection and disclosure of data on the numbers and manners of resolution of civil rights complaints and appeals by county, and provides for a yearly report to Congress summarizing by state the number and type of employee actions by grade level and agency; requires findings of discrimination to be included in employee personnel records and in job performance evaluations; and prohibits an retaliation toward employees for handling of evaluation of civil rights actions or appeals; establishes a strong system of compliance monitoring; and corrects other disparities in the operation of programs; increases authorizations and makes mandatory funding for key programs and accomplishes other purposes. The following are recommendations.
Page 483 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Establishment of clear and direct authority in all USDA programs which serve farmers to enter into grants and contracts for outreach and technical assistance with qualified community based organizations and educational institutions.
Require the USDA to compute and disclose target participation rates and apply them to compare and disclose participation of minority farmers and other farmers in all programs serving farmers
Require posting and updating of all data in sections 402- above on USDA websites at the county, state and national level.
Establishes a minority farm registry.
Provide funding for program of outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers.
Provides funding for the extension Indian reservation program.
Increase participation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in environmental quality incentives programs.
Provide grants to upgrade agricultural and food sciences facilities at 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University.
Equitable Participation in Programs
Minority participation in all USDA programs is substandard. In order to further the purposes of equitable participation in every program of the department the Secretary shall have full authority to enter into grants and contracts with community-based organization with demonstrated experience working with target populations to provide outreach and technical assistance. Likewise, the Secretary shall have full authority to utilize authorized funds in every program for this purpose.
These recommendations, when implemented, ensure adequate funding and fair access to credit programs vital to agriculture and assures that all farmers, minority and small-scale farmers in particular, are not denied access to USDA/FSA credit based on arbitrary time-limits or prior debt forgiveness. USDA should renew and extend the use of target participation rates to evaluate participation in programs and require reporting county-by-county of participation in direct, guaranteed and beginning farmer-lending programs.
Page 484 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our research has demonstrated that minority and small-scale farmers receive most of the services they have through their cooperatives, community based organizations, Educational Institutions and from peers in their local community. Participation in USDA programs-particularly commodity programs-remains substandard among this segment of producers. At the same time, USDA outreach efforts vary widely from county to county. Participant rates have soared in areas where outreach and technical assistance is being done by community-based organizations that have been funded through the 2501 Minority Outreach and Technical Assistance Program. Additional funding should be directed at this program at a minimum of $25,000,000 per year in order to adequately support all minority and small-scaled producers.
II. Equitable Access to the Farm Credit System
Again, agriculture has witnessed significant declines of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers participating in the industry. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights Action Team Report indicated that for African-American, the number fell from 925,000, 14 percent of all farms in 1920, to 18,000 or 1 percent of all farms in 1992. And, as we all know the numbers continue to decline.
Some have concluded, and correctly so, that the reason for the decline can be attributed in part to the lack of financing made available to this underserved segment of agriculture and rural America. USDA has attempted to reverse the decline by implementing ''outreach'' programs and programs to target direct loan funds and guaranteed loan funds to Socially Disadvantage (SDA) Farmers and Ranchers (defined as Blacks, not of Hispanic Origin, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Hispanic and Asians or Pacific Islander). However, of concern is USDA's commitment. Accessing these and other programs at USDA has not been user friendly, as evidenced by the Black, Indian and Hispanic lawsuits against USDA. Additionally, USDA elected not to implement a Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the National Bankers Association, the 75-year old trade association for minority and women owned banks. The MOU would have provided about $18.5 million to fund guaranteed loans to SDAs. The MOU is attached along with the Secretary Glickman's announcement of the MOU.
Page 485 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also have concerns about the lending practices of the Farm Credit System (FCS). As you know, the FCS is the single largest provider of financing for agriculture in the United States. The National Commission on Small Farms, in its January 1998 Report stated, ''FCS has a poor record of lending to small, limited-resource, beginning and minority farmers'.
As you know, the FCS was created in 1916 with the establishment of 12 Federal Land Banks (FLBs). The government provided $125 million in seed money for this purpose. In 1933, as a result of the Great Depression, FLBs required re-capitalization by the government and the lowering of interest rates. By 1968, the FCS paid off the government's capital investment in the FCS. During the 1970's and 1980's, the ranges of services offered by the FCS were expanded significantly. Agriculture plummeted into a recession in the early and mid–1980's causing FCS to suffer a severe financial crisis which necessitated congressional assistance. Approximately $1.26 billion in funds were provided. It must be noted that the funds have been repaid. Through the government/taxpayer assistance, the FCS was able to position itself to reach the unprecedented high levels of profitability and capital it is currently enjoying. The government/taxpayer assistance, while indirect, continues today and will continue tomorrow as evidenced by special appropriates for agriculture. The appropriations have hovered in the $25 billion range in the past, and future appropriations are currently being debated. The funds have gone and will go to farmers and ranchers who use these funds in some cases to repay loans to the FCS. As a result, the FCS continues to have record profits and capital levels in spite of across the board low commodity prices. The reason for the FCS history and focus on past, present and future government/taxpayer assistance is to point up the absence of any public policy goal on the part of the FCS, as it is with commercial financial institution which relies on support from the government/taxpayer.
We are talking about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As you are aware, Congress passed CRA in 1997 essentially to fight discrimination in lending. Under CRA, regulatory agencies are required to assess financial institutions' record of lending, investing and providing services to low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods. Usually, minorities populate these neighborhoods. CRA applies to all federally-insured commercial banks, savings and saving associations. The rationale behind applying the CRA to depository financial institutions is that these institutions benefit from direct taxpayer guarantees. Customer deposits, which fund the activities of these institutions, carry government deposit insurance. CRA changed how bankers viewed their role in cities and has played an important role in improving access of credit to minorities. It is estimated that tens of billions of dollars have flowed into minority areas as a result of CRA.
Page 486 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we are not advocating bringing the FCS under CRA, we are advocating requiring the FCS to meet the spirit and intent of CRA. Currently, Section 4.19 of the Farm Credit Act requires the FCS institutions to have programs for young, beginning and small farmers and ranchers. We recommended this section be amended to read, ''young, beginning, small and SDA farmers and ranchers'. Additionally, we are recommending that all references in the Farm Credit Act to young, beginning and small farmers and ranchers be similarly amended to include SDA''. I recall a similar recommendation in your (Congressman Hilliard) opening remarks during the March 7, 2001, hearing on National Charters for the FCS. Also, Congresswoman Maxine Waters raised regulatory and lending issues in an October 31, 2000, letter to Michael M. Reyna, chairman/chief executive officer of the Farm Credit Administration (the regulator for the FCS). The letter was the result of Mr. Reyna's October 3, 2000, testimony before the Banking Committee on National Charters for FCS institutions. The Congresswoman also made several recommendations. We endorse both the issues that were raised and the recommendations made. The Congresswoman's letter is attached.
In addition to the recommendation by Congresswoman Waters, and us, we also recommend that Section 4.25 of the Farm credit Act be amended. Under this Section, one or more FCB institutions acting together may organize a corporation (s) to perform certain services and functions, except for extending credit. We recommend this section be amended to specifically allow FCS institutions to form corporations to carry out Section of 4.19 as amended above.
October 31, 2000
Michael M. Reyna
Chairman/chief executive officer
Farm Credit Administration
1501 Farm Credit Drive
McLean, VA 22102–5090
Page 487 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dear Chairman Reyna:
Your participation in the hearing conducted by the House Banking and Financial Services Committee on October 3, 2000 provided a valuable orientation to the policy direction and Leadership perspectives of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA). Again, I congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman and chief executive officer.
As you will recall, our colloquy during the hearing revealed the need for FCA to examine its responsiveness to minority, women and socially disadvantaged farmers and farm communities. I was particularly dismayed that minority representation among the numerous associations throughout the farm credit system (System) is practically, if not literally, non-existent. The absence of minority participation in decisions of the associations may well account for the disappearance of African-American farm families.
The Farm Credit Act authorized credit and financial services for farm families challenged by economic crises including the lack or denial of access to financial markets. In addition, the public policy objectives of the Act include an obligation for the System to serve young, beginning and small (YBS) farmers and ranchers.
In order for the System to meet its responsibilities under the Act, a very deliberate program must be instituted to serve not only YBS farmers, but minority, women and socially disadvantaged farmers (MWS-D) as well. Toward this end, I strongly urge you to require that:
An annual report be commissioned to record the loans and financial services sought and made available to MWS-D borrowers;
All Local Service Area Plans (LSAPs) be required to include effective outreach programs designed to service minority, women and socially disadvantaged farmers and farm families;
Annual goals and timetables are agreed upon by the local associations and your office in an LSAP approval process that will stimulate and guide local efforts to serve MWS-D;
Page 488 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With your oversight, local associations and other decision-making bodies in the System review their rules, by-l laws, practices and regulations in order to eliminate those that operate to suppress participation in the System by MWS-D farmers.
Please give your immediate attention to this matter, Chairman Reyna. Should your initial assessment of the resource and policy requirements of my request indicate that new legislative initiatives are needed, you are urged to inform me forthwith.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters
Member of Congress
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(RURAL DEVELOPMENT)
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:10 p.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank Lucas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Moran, Ose, Osborne, Kennedy, Hilliard, Baldacci, Phelps, Thompson of California, Clayton and Stenholm [ex officio].
Also present: Representatives Holden, and Pomeroy.
Page 489 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Staff present: Ryan Weston, subcommittee staff director; Dave Ebersole, senior professional staff; Callista Gingrich, chief clerk; Pam Scott, Susanna Love, and Russell Middleton
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. LUCAS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Credit, Conservation, Rural Development, and Research to review rural development programs and issues will come to order.
I would like to welcome everyone to the subcommittee hearing today to discuss current rural development issues. Today's hearing is going to be a sobering experience to many who do not realize the plight of those in rural America.
While my observations may be pointed, let me make it clear that there is no one more concerned than me about how this Nation's rural development policies are working.
I strongly encourage the members of the subcommittee and full committee to examine closely the testimony we will hear, as well as the many pieces of written testimony that are being submitted for the record.
Presidents have been trying to create and coordinate programs to help rural America since the turn of the century. Nearly 70 percent of the counties in the U.S. are considered rural. If a community is not close to a metropolitan area, it is becoming more and more the possibility that it may be sliding deeper into poverty.
There are many ideas on what is most important to rural America. Some will advocate for water and water disposal loans and grants. Others will say housing. Still others will work for education and capacity-building for those communities, hoping to develop an idea to create economic growth.
Page 490 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Block grants may be an option, but who will be accountable in the end if they do not work? Are they the best option? Others will say that we should direct funds specifically so that we know exactly how they are being spent. However, that certainly will limit flexibility and local control.
Many will ask us to devote mandatory funds to rural development. Nearly 100 percent of rural development funds come from discretionary accounts. This committee tried in 1996 to allow mandatory accounts to be used for rural development through the Fund for Rural America. However, our constituency groups have not been able to rally behind mandatory funds strongly enough. The appropriations committees have prohibited funding for the Fund for Rural America.
I cannot solely fault the appropriators if the groups we are trying to help cannot support a measure strongly enough to guarantee its funding. If we attempt to use mandatory funds again, then we should use a model that gives us as authorizers some degree of certainty that the funds will actually be spent in the way we intend for them to be spent.
I do not want to lose the chance to close the digital divide between rural and urban areas. Outside of water, electricity, and housing, the new technologies propelling the rest of the country forward must receive a focus in this rural development title. If we cannot afford to have high-speed cable in every house in rural America, we need to make sure that affordable direct satellite linkage is an option.
I have come to the conclusion that a coordinated effort from the West Wing flowing down through this committee and all of the other committees, departments, and agencies that share rural development jurisdiction, is the only way to ensure that coordination and cooperation, and to prevent duplication. Most importantly, it may be the only way to direct spending. There are already voluminous amounts of authorizations on the books. It is not this subcommittee's intent to simply authorize more programs that are never implemented and funded.
Page 491 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I would like to remind the witnesses and my subcommittee members that some of the ideas we will hear today, while extremely valid, such as those regarding housing programs and certain tax credits, will not be considered in the farm bill debate because they would cause the farm bill to be referred to other committees.
With that, I look forward to everyone's testimony today. I turn to the ranking member for any opening comments Mr. Hilliard may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, members, and distinguished guests, it is indeed a pleasure for me to welcome you here to discuss something very close to my heart: rural development. Our rural communities in this Nation are falling apart. Jobs have left, farms have been lost, people move to the cities in quest of work. Many of our rural areas contain mostly elderly people or kids, with the grandparents caring for the children while the young adults are in the city working.
The social structures suffer under such conditions. Many of our rural schools are failures and are not improving, leaving us students with little hope for a future. Small, poor, minority, retired, and lifestyle farms normally lose money, and the people who own them and work them make their living from their jobs in businesses and industry. Without industry in rural areas for employment, people lose their farms and have to leave the areas for the city.
I have been working on rural development since I was in the Alabama State legislature, totalling some 31 years. I am still not satisfied with the way things are in my district, and I am not satisfied with the way things are in rural America. We must do better.
We have with us today one of the workers in the Seventh Congressional District rural area. He is John Zippert, the chairperson of the Rural Coalition and program director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. John and I have worked in many nonprofit corporations in order to bring the lives of people in the rural areas of Alabama to a new level and to a higher standard.
Page 492 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is impossible to list those things that John Zippert has done and is doing, but let me point out that he is the co-partner of the Green County Democrat, the newspaper for Green County, which of course is completely nonpartisan.
When we formed the Alabama New South Coalition, John and I were in the leadership roles, and John led the economic development committee. His contributions to our district, State, and Nation are impossible to measure. I look forward to his testimony, as well as that of his contemporaries. Let us hope that out of the testimony will come some ideas that will help us further develop rural America.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this timely hearing, and I thank the witnesses for being here with us today.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair would request that the members would submit their written statements for the record to ensure that we have ample time for questions.
I would like to invite the first panel to the table. I will introduce a couple, and Mr. Pomeroy will introduce one witness.
Mr. Blaine Stockton, Acting Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
He will be accompanied by William Hagy, Acting Administrator of Rural Business-Cooperative Service; James C. Alsop, Acting Administrator of the Rural Housing Service; and Norman Reid, Acting Director of the Office of Community Development.
Also on this panel we have Mr. Charles W. Fluharty, director of the Rural Policy Research Institute, Columbia, Missouri.
I would turn to one of our dear colleagues who spent much time struggling with these issues with us on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be back in the Committee on Agriculture, and to see you at the chair, and the ranking member at the ranking member position.
Page 493 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also want to note before beginning the introduction, Mr. Chairman, that the RMA has agreed to make timely payment on the revenue assurance policies, as per your request to the agency. Thank you very much for your leadership on that issue.
The National Governors Association has selected North Dakota's Governor, John Hoeven, to present its views on this panel. They could not have chosen better. Governor Hoeven is the newly-elected Republican Governor of North Dakota. He is a friend of mine, and his activities and leadership in rural development are long established.
Prior to becoming Governor, he was president and CEO of the Bank of North Dakota, which is the only State-owned bank in the entire country. The mission of the bank is to create economic growth, particularly in areas like rural development, and he accomplished this while growing the bank's assets from $900 million to $1.6 billion.
Prior to his position as president of the Bank of North Dakota, he was the vice-president of the First Western Bank in Minot, so he has very much front-line Main Street experience in trying to grow and make things happen in our rural communities.
He has chaired the Minot Area Development Council. He has been on the board of directors for the North Dakota Small Business Investment Company, the North Dakota Bankers Association, the Economic Developers Association. I think you are getting a feel for the fact that this is a leader who has been there and done it in terms of making things happen in rural America.
As a member of the Congressional Rural Caucus, along with so many of you, I think that our mission in this area is critically important. There will be some who think Federal resources are not necessary in this area, but we know the situation is very, very different. Of the 250 poorest counties in the country, 98 percent of them, 244, are rural.
Their needs go to a strong farm program that helps our family farmers, but it goes well beyond that as well. It goes to infrastructure, especially in this technology age. It goes to transportation. It goes to education. It goes to the critical capital that allows us to develop and create job opportunities so we can keep our young people in these communities.
Page 494 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate your attention to this vital topic. Thank you for allowing me to address our highly respected Governor.
Mr. LUCAS. Governor.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
Governor HOEVEN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Congressman Pomeroy, for that very nice introduction.
Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to testify. I am John Hoeven, Governor of the State of North Dakota. I am here representing the National Governors Association, where I currently serve as a member of the Committee on Natural Resources. I want to discuss rural development policy and its importance to North Dakota and to our Nation's Governors.
The Governors place a very high priority on maintaining family-based agriculture. Keeping families on farms is critically important to the economies of our States. We must support traditional agriculture, but income from non-traditional sources is an increasingly important factor in farm income. The ability to participate in value-added agriculture processing and niche marketing is essential to keeping a farming operation viable, and thus sustaining the rural economy.
The economic well-being of all our citizens depends on a healthy rural economy. However, rural communities are faced with many diverse and complex economic challenges. Many rural Americans have been left behind while other Americans are benefiting from significant advancements in the quality of their economic and social lives. We as a Nation pay very high economic and social costs when a large segment of the labor force is left behind.
Page 495 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To effectively address the many needs of our Nation's rural communities, we recommend the following: increased flexibility for States in implementing and targeting Federal funds; access to more effective and adaptable credit programs; improved coordination of Federal and State rural development services, and rural access to technology in order to provide greater opportunities for rural economies to compete in local, State, and global markets.
Community development block grants. The single best allocation to States to assist in rural development projects are discretionary block grants that provide States the flexibility to target the use of the funds where they can be most effective. Federal formula funding often overlooks the unique needs and infrastructure development that may be critical to community and business development.
North Dakota receives approximately $6 million in community development block grants each year. Roughly half of the money is allocated to eight regional councils within the State for local infrastructure and technical assistance needs. The remaining funds are utilized at the State level and are targeted to business creation that generates wealth, jobs, and opportunity in rural North Dakota.
The funding can help underwrite infrastructure costs that might otherwise derail worthwhile projects, such as an industrial park created to bring new businesses and value-added processing to a rural community. The block grant allows the State to effectively target the funds to the priority needs that vary from region to region.
In my opinion, discretionary block grant funding is the most effective program we have, and every effort should be made to increase funding in this area.
Access to credit. Access to affordable credit through interest buydowns, loan guarantees, and direct loans is another key aspect of a comprehensive rural development strategy. Economic development progress in rural areas depends on a stable source of credit that meets the needs of a new generation of producers while working with rural communities to diversify their economies.
Page 496 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Three categories of credit programs are vital to the enhancement of our rural economies.
First is credit to assist beginning farmers and ranchers. Beginning farmer credit programs ensure that young producers have access to the capital necessary for them to purchase land and equipment. These programs help stabilize rural communities by making it possible for families to stay on or create their family farm, the foundation of our rural economy.
The beginning farmer loan program should be expanded, and the guaranteed loan program's qualification requirements and loan limits should be reviewed to ensure they meet critical needs for credit at reasonable rates.
The second area, credit to help expand existing farm and ranch operations. Federal credit assistance is needed to help our farmers and ranchers expand their operations and gain the benefits of economies of scale.
Two such examples in my State are family and cooperatively-owned dairy and livestock feeding operations. These operations represent value-added agriculture in its most basic form. By turning grain and forage into milk and meat, these operations change raw commodities into higher-value products.
Unfortunately, USDA funds are currently restricted from participating in feeding operations because they are classified as production agriculture. The credit programs should be expanded to support these types of wealth creation ventures.
The third area is credit programs to help promote value-added agriculture processing ventures.
Finally, credit guarantee programs, interest assistance, and direct loans are important tools for encouraging independent family farmers to invest in value-added agriculture processing ventures. These ventures give producers the ability to greatly enhance the economic position of their commodity-producing farm operations through vertical integration.
Page 497 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
North Dakota has successfully utilized the USDA rural development business and industry loan guarantee program. The B&I guarantee program has enabled our banks to provide financing for business ventures across the State.
Currently, value-added companies are converting durum and wheat into pasta and flour, processing livestock into retail package meat cuts, and creating specialty crop marketing costs, all with the B&I program helping to mitigate the risk for the financial institution.
North Dakota also works to provide rural economic development assistance through the State-owned Bank of North Dakota, which Congressman Pomeroy mentioned. In partnership with Federal rural development efforts, our one-of-a-kind State-owned institution offers loans to beginning farmers, and provides credit guarantees and interest assistance for value-added agriculture processing investments. These programs are greatly enhanced by the availability of ample and flexible farm credit programs. This State-Federal partnership can serve as an example of how other rural development efforts can effectively function.
While effective current Federal programs must offer a greater degree of flexibility and recognition of unique State situations, credit support limits should be raised in recognition of larger capital requirements for today's businesses. For example, in North Dakota we found the USDA Business and Industry assistance has higher limits than the Small Business Administration guarantees, and thus are more effective for these larger capital projects.
Program coordination. I want to encourage the Federal Government to consolidate and coordinate the individual Federal rural development programs into fewer, more flexible programs to provide States with development grants, loans, research grants, and technology transfer support for rural development.
While specific programs, such as the infrastructure programs of the USDA rural development or the business assistance programs of the U.S. Department of Commerce are available to rural communities, they have not been sufficiently coordinated, nor has there been a sustained commitment to either long-term funding or to making program assistance available to specific communities over time.
Page 498 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Flexibility is crucial because States are better positioned to recognize a threatened community within their borders, and they are also more precisely equipped to target resources efficiently and effectively to address local needs.
The National Governors Association urges you to acknowledge and utilize an existing mechanism that was established for the purpose of coordination of programs. In 1990, NGA jointed with USDA to establish what has become known as the National Rural Development Partnership, the NRDP. It was established to help rural community leaders, government policymakers, and agency program administrators coordinate their efforts to address rural community needs.
A major element of the partnership is the creation of State Rural Development Councils, SRDCs, which are collaborative bodies consisting of Federal, State, tribal, and local government officials, plus representatives from the private sector. The SRDCs were designed to improve the employment opportunities, incomes, and well-being of rural Americans by strengthening their capacity to compete in the national and international economy.
Forty States, including North Dakota, have established Rural Development Councils, which seek to identify the rural needs within their respective States and to coordinate the broad range of public and private resources to respond to those needs. Individual Governors have called on the councils in their States to support Federal and State initiatives.
Technology. The barriers to instant information and access to technology remain high for rural communities. According to a Department of Commerce 1999 report, people living in rural areas lag behind other Americans in access to high-speed Internet connections necessary to stay in step with the rest of our Nation and to access the opportunities created by the new economy.
Although the Department of Commerce estimates that 91 percent of all American households will be online by the year 2005, the quality of that access will continue to be unequal in rural States. While 65 percent of U.S. cities enjoy cable or DSL service, less than 5 percent of towns with fewer than 10,000 people have access to either high-speed DSL or cable service. These high-speed connections provide international access up to 100 times faster than those available over ordinary phone lines, the next generation medium for distance learning, telemedicine, and vital economic development resources, and rural America deserves equal access to them.
Page 499 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Internet is also an important tool for economic empowerment. Technology access is essential for participation in the digital economy. Investments in rural technology infrastructures will help rural areas overcome the two major barriers to economic growth: distance from markets, and economies of scale.
North Dakota has developed a State-wide broadband Internet access initiative. Like rural electrification, rural telephone exchanges and rural water development, the Federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that people outside of urban areas have access to the tools of a modern economy.
We have received Federal assistance through the e-rate subsidy financed through the Universal Access Fund. This program needs to be continued. We encourage Congress to ensure that rural America keeps pace with the rest of the country in technological advancements.
Development of a world-class technology education and access will enhance the entrepreneurial opportunities in rural areas and will ensure that all of America enjoys the benefits of the information economy.
In conclusion, greater State discretion in Federal program management will make rural development efforts more strategic, responsive, and beneficial. Direct block grant funding would help reduce Federal bureaucracy while providing States with the greatest opportunity to meaningfully move rural development forward in America. Enhanced credit programs and better coordination between Federal and State government will support capital formation needs for farmers, ranchers, and rural business. Federal help to fund information technology will ensure that there is no digital divide.
A flexible, coordinated approach between Federal programs and State governments will help ensure that rural and urban America grow together as we move forward into the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Page 500 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Governor Hoeven appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Stockton.
STATEMENT OF BLAINE STOCKTON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM F. HAGY III, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE, USDA; JAMES C. ALSOP, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, USDA, AND NORMAN REID, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. STOCKTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to testify today for the Rural Development Mission area of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. My name is Blaine Stockton. I am the acting administrator of the Rural Utility Service. I am accompanied by Bill Hagy, acting administrator of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service, James Alsop, acting administrator of the Rural Housing Service, and Norman Reid, acting director of the Office of Community Development.
Rural Development assists rural individuals, communities, and businesses to obtain the financial and technical assistance needed to address their diverse and unique needs. The different USDA programs work together with local leaders and local programs to invest in the rural citizens and communities that have been the backbone of the United States economy for most of this Nation's history.
The Rural Development programs serve all communities in rural America. Native American tribal communities, areas like the Delta and Colonias, with a high percentage of minorities, are participants in rural development programs. Construction of day care facilities, senior citizen centers, and housing is to the benefit of both single women with children and elderly women with fixed incomes. The infrastructure programs are required to cover everyone in a service area, assisting everyone on an equal basis.
Page 501 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Rural Development Mission area consists of three agencies: the Rural Business Cooperative Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. These agencies are responsible for delivering programs authorized by the Consolidated Farm Rural Development Act, the Farm Security Act of 1985, the Rural Electrification Act, the Cooperative Marketing Act, the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1936, the Housing Act of 1949, and the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990.
The Mission, through its Office of Community Development, also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Program, related community development activities, and helps support the National Rural Development Partnership, a nationwide network of rural development leaders and officials.
This listing of responsibilities is suggestive of the remarkably wide variety of responsibilities in Rural Development's purview, to improve the quality of life for rural Americans.
Rural Development agencies deliver over 40 different loan, loan guarantee, and grant programs in the areas of business development, cooperative development, housing, community facilities, community empowerment, water supply, waste disposal, electric power, and telecommunications, including distance learning and telemedicine.
Rural Development staff located in field offices and Washington, DC provide technical assistance to rural families and community leaders to enhance community capacity for development and to ensure success of projects Rural Development has financed.
In addition to their grant and loan-making responsibilities, the Rural Development staff are also responsible for servicing a loan portfolio that exceeds $80 billion.
Rural Development's impressive aggregate statistics display one dimension of the success of the program. However, statistics do not reveal the human side of these successes. When a family has clean water for the first time, moves into their first home, or sees success in a start-up business that contributes not only to that family but also to the entire community. We are able to reap the full dividends of this tremendous investment.
Page 502 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The commitment to improve housing conditions in rural areas, and in particular improve home ownership opportunities, makes an investment in human dignity that gives us a stronger community and Nation. The single-family direct and guaranty loans enable families who are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to purchase a home of their own. Home improvement grants go to help current homeowners, mostly low-income and elderly, solve problems that would often make the home unavailable without the repairs.
One key to creating economic opportunity in rural areas is the development of new business and employment opportunities. Local lending institutions frequently do not have the capacity or capital to sustain local businesses and generate new growth in rural areas.
Rural Business-Cooperative Services programs, particularly the B&I loan guarantee program, were enacted to supplement the efforts of local lending institutions in providing the capital. Rural Business Services loans and grants are weighted to the number of jobs created or preserved. Rural Development anticipates that, through its 2001 program, over 71,600 jobs will be saved or developed through providing assistance to 2,700 businesses.
The Cooperative Services Program offers a wide range of assistance to rural residents interested in forming new cooperatives or to existing cooperatives facing specific problems. Rural cooperatives have assisted in marketing, purchasing, or adding value to everything from supplies, raw agriculture commodities, or needed services.
Yesterday, Secretary Veneman announced the approval of 28 value-added agriculture product market development grants totalling nearly $10 million. Nearly $2.5 million of these grants focused on renewable energy resources.
The Rural Utilities Service provides financing for electric, telecommunications, and water and waste disposal services that are essential for economic development in rural areas. RUS has an ongoing partnership with approximately 800 rural electric borrowers, 800 rural telecommunications providers, and some 7,200 small communities, rural water, and waste disposal systems.
Page 503 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Electric Program benefits consumers through new construction, system improvements, and upgrading of rural electric systems. This next year through the loan program we would expect 60,000 jobs will be created as a result of facilities constructed with Electric Program investments in rural infrastructure.
Building and maintaining modern telecommunications infrastructure is critical to rural economic development. Nowhere does the revolution in information technology offer more promise and face more challenge than rural America.
There is no more basic human need than clean, safe drinking water. Availability of safe, clean water and the ability to remove waste in a safe and ecologically sound manner has never been more challenging or more expensive.
For this fiscal year, Congress provided a pilot program with $100 million in loan funds and $2 million in grants for broadband service where it does not exist in communities of up to 20,000 population. The program has had over $300 million in applications.
Authorizing legislation for a loan and grant program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet service in rural areas is under development at USDA as provided for in the President's 2002 budget request. This will improve access to high-speed, high-capacity data transmission to underserved rural areas.
The Office of Community Development administers Rural Development's Community Empowerment Programs. In addition to specific technical assistance provided to rural communities by community development specialists nationwide, OCD implements ongoing programs that help distressed rural communities develop the capacity to plan, finance, and implement long-term strategic development plans.
OCD has an ongoing partnership with eight rural Empowerment Zones, 49 Enterprise Communities, 120 Champion Communities, five Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and a number of high-impact targeted regional initiatives.
Page 504 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past 12 months, in the 57 rural EC/EZs, close to 7,000 jobs were created or saved, some 600 new houses were built, and over 1,200 rehabilitated. There were 12,500 participants in youth programs, 20,000 participants in education programs were served, nearly 450 business loans were made, and 95 new businesses were started or relocated in these areas.
Rural Development programs work in concert. Without housing, there is no need for utilities. Without jobs, there are no people to live in the houses. Without leadership in these rural communities, no program, Federal or State, will serve the needs. Leadership, development, investment, and training enable communities to grow and prosper.
The programs outlined for you today are tools for rural communities to use to meet the needs and challenges they face in this global, digital economy. Rural America is not isolated from economic downturns in Asia or conflicts in Eastern Europe.
Providing the tools to take advantage of the benefits of expanded markets and new opportunities is not easy. Delivering these programs to remote, isolated low-income areas of rural America requires administrative expenses sufficient to the task.
Rural Development's loan portfolio exceeds $80 billion. Funding is a joint venture requiring careful underwriting and businesslike servicing. The USDA employees are at as high a level of professional competence as you will find in or out of government service. The Mission Area looks forward to working with you in the future to serve rural America.
Mr. Chairman and members, this concludes my summary comments. The other acting administrators and I would entertain any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stockton appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Fluharty.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. FLUHARTY, DIRECTOR, RURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COLUMBIA, MO
Page 505 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FLUHARTY. Thank you. I appreciate being here. I would ask that my full testimony be entered in the record.
Mr. LUCAS. Without objection.
Mr. FLUHARTY. Chairman Lucas, Representative Hilliard and members of this subcommittee, we appreciate this invitation to discuss the context, framework, and content of the comprehensive farm bill rural development reauthorization you are about to undertake.
First of all, allow me to commend your commitment to building a more integrative, comprehensive and community-based framework for this Federal commitment to rural people and places.
We all realize this is an extremely daunting task. However, I firmly believe the diverse constituencies represented in this hearing room today acknowledge and are willing to act upon the mutual interdependence which their members and constituencies in rural America have long understood and are acting upon every day in their home communities.
It is far past time that the agricultural and rural community sublinks unite around a basic family truth. I commend this committee and its leadership for the foresight and courage to initiate this national dialog with such a framework in mind. I fear if we do not do that, all else we do will result in minimal improvement.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing unfolds at a very historic moment. The people and places of rural America and the organizations and institutions which serve them have never been in more general agreement that rural America is no longer well-served by mere incremental tinkering at the edges of national policy. You must no longer accept such a fragmented approach. Instead, comprehensive, contemporary policies need to be crafted, designed to sustain a dynamic rural America in a global environment. You must challenge historic naysayers who have successfully denied rural people this outcome in the past.
Page 506 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These failed incremental approaches are no longer sufficient. Our Nation needs a forward-looking, comprehensive, contemporary rural policy. This goal can only be achieved through a thoughtful, inclusive, and informed public dialog regarding the unique character of today's rural America so that creative public policies crafted to address these realities and not the rural mythologies of the past are developed. However, this cannot occur without the bipartisan leadership you represent, for this is necessary if we are to initiate, sustain, and complete such a dynamic new effort for rural America.
I urge your leadership in developing such a comprehensive approach and a farm bill which is different in kind and not just degree from those in the past. The constituencies before you today would support such a stand, and I believe they are ready to serve in that effort. If you can achieve this, I believe you will have seized upon the most unique rural policy opportunity of our generation.
Were we to do this, what would the key components of such a comprehensive policy be? I will briefly mention seven.
First of all, assure that our national policy is comprehensive, driven by very specific Federal goals and outcome measures put in place to evaluate whether we have met them or not. For all the recommendations to reach fruition, a national commitment to the design of a comprehensive approach is critical.
Second, sustain existing categorical programs and funding support. Obviously, existing Federal rural programs, policies, and funding streams are essential to the continued viability of rural communities, firms, farms and ranches and families. Great care must be taken, and the first do-no-harm principle must be our operative first principle if strategic strategies are designed and developed to alter that framework.
Third, rural community capacity, collaboration, and leadership development must be our guiding framework, and flexibility must be its key concept. If rural communities are to fully benefit from a more focused national approach, coordinated Federal effort designed around community capacity-building with the Federal, State, and local jurisdictions must drive that solution.
Page 507 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, we must develop a more integrative, community-based framework. A critical first step in addressing this could occur in the multiple programs of USDA which have just been mentioned. Congress should encourage and support an emergent trend within USDA to build such an integrative framework.
Fifth, we must address the challenge of venture and equity capital in rural America. Venture capital markets are unorganized and often nonexistent in rural America. Traditional venture capital remains concentrated, both geographically and in high-tech sectors, and a minuscule share of public and private equity capital target entrepreneurial firms in rural America. We must assure that changes.
Sixth, we must support an approach which exploits the interdependency of agriculture and the broader rural community and not allow ourselves to be divided by those historic fissures. For too long, agricultural development and rural development have been worlds apart perceptually, although the constituencies they serve in the dirt are the very same rural people in communities. In a thriving rural America, these past dependencies are a luxury we simply can no longer afford.
Finally, we must support rural entrepreneurship in both the public and the private sector. If we are to be successful in the ventures above and move over time from a Federal framework, which has been too often characterized by dependency, to one which encourages entrepreneurship in the public and private sector, I believe it must begin, Mr. Chairman, with this committee and this Congress.
I thank you on behalf of all the constituencies for your commitment to this very critical dialog.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Fluharty.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fluharty appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Page 508 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair would like to note that the Governor, because of time constraints in his traveling schedule, had to leave early.
I would, though, offer an observation about the Governor's comments and very insightful testimony, and reference it to everyone on the committee or the panel who would care to respond, that having served 5 1/2 years in the State legislature and having worked in an environment where some might say that there are many similar tendencies between State Senators and U.S. Senators, I guess I would ask the question: How, in the spirit of potentially doing more block grants, more flexibility to States, how do we maintain that concept of control, as I mentioned in my opening statement?
Would either of you care to offer any insights on how we balance that?
Mr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by saying that is simply the first example of the challenge of an incremental approach. I agree, that is a huge juggernaut, but I believe if we think through those interjurisdictional relationships in a comprehensive national dialog, we can perhaps begin to get at that in ways that make sense.
I will simply say that there is a long history in rural policy that our best efforts are moved to the State. I think there are States where that has been truly the case and States in which that has truly not been the case. I would urge great care there.
I think if we are to go down that path, we need to go down that path with all of these jurisdictional actors hooked to the wagon at the very start. If we can do that, we do have some hope.
I would also urge that in that discussion all jurisdictions are included, as are community-based and regional organizations within those States. I think that is particularly critical, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Addressing my next question to the panel as a whole, in most of the endeavors we talk about the constant need for more resources becoming clear. I would ask this question of the entire panel, too. Of the two funding sources we have, either discretionary or mandatory spending, which do you think is the appropriate route to go; i.e., mandatory being money that is allocated by this committee, or discretionary being the money that is handled through the appropriations process, bearing, of course, in mind that in recent years we have attempted to commit mandatory spending to various things, rural development being one of those, and have seen on a regular basis our efforts temporarily changed, so to speak, by the other committee.
Page 509 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, Mr. Stockton, step out on that ice.
Mr. STOCKTON. You are the authorizing committee. You need to authorize those programs. The other body provides the appropriation. We have to take our direction from what dollars are made available to us.
I think it is an issue that I am not sure that I am prepared to address one way or the other, sir.
Mr. LUCAS. Your ice is a little thicker, Mr. Fluharty.
Mr. FLUHARTY. My distance is also a little longer, Mr. Chairman. But let me say, it again refers to the challenge that I attempt to lay out if we are going to take a serious view at that. That is, if we look at the programs across the portfolio and think about redundancies or gaps, the very issue you have raised points to my concern that we begin to think of this in a more comprehensive way as opposed to an incremental way.
I realize those institutional challenges are yours, but let me simply say that I really believe both economies have created programs which have worked, but in that division great redundancies, great overlap, and, frankly, some Federal funding that could more appropriately have been integrated has not occurred.
The challenge you raise is yours, but it is an issue that plays out in my concern that we build a more comprehensive approach for rural policy.
Mr. LUCAS. Are you advocating, Mr. Fluharty, basically that we put everything on the table, examine every existing program with a magnifying glass, and begin from there?
Mr. FLUHARTY. Not that, Mr. Chairman. I am suggesting that I think we need to back up a bit and take a look at those 800 programs and reevaluate how rational that approach is for future people.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Page 510 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I now turn to one of the great activists on this subcommittee and on the full committee on rural development issues and with great interest listen to what Mrs. Clayton will have to say.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for holding the hearing. Thank you for your public commitment that we would have a strong rural development program. I want to acknowledge that. How we do it is obviously the question. I hope we don't have to discuss should we do it, but how we do it I think is the question.
One of Mr. Fluharty's comments maintained we should do no harm. Sometimes we put the collaboration and the coordination together and we invariably have to tweak it. Each of us have our little favorite programs we want to protect for good and valid reasons, or for ego or personal reasons, whatever reasons. We have come to feel comfortable with them. We see how they are being used.
One of the things the Governor talked about—and I am sure he gets this from the fact that the community development block grant which comes from HUD goes to small cities. It has a certain amount of flexibility. Part of my background is I was assistant secretary for community development and chief planner for my State at one time. We had both HUD monies, we had OEO monies, we had monies coming from training, and it was difficult how you could combine that.
If we look at the HUD dollars that governors are most comfortable with, it is not the dollars that actually go to their big cities, which they have little control over, it is the monies that come to them that they have some control over, so we can begin to see that the flexibility depends on who is getting the flexibility. Since I worked for a governor, I enjoyed that flexibility, but I also knew that my Raleighs, my Charlottes, appreciated HUD making some special allocations to them.
The Federal dollars that come from HUD, for example, give flexibility, but they give parameters how they can be spent. You can elect to spend it for business, for infrastructure, for housing, or a combination of giving resources to nonprofits that would achieve that. But there is guidance given to the local government so it is not something completely out of the authorization that Congress has given HUD. It is consistent with the mission of HUD.
Page 511 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Back to USDA, if our mission is to enable agriculture and rural communities to thrive, we also have an opportunity, it seems to me, that we could give a series of menus or programs that would be in housing, business development added technology or expanded technology.
As we look at those structures, Mr. Stockton, are those two things you think given—on your testimony you have laid out what we are now doing through rural development, which is quite extensive. But there are some areas we could do other things. EDA has monies for economic development that we ought to, if not examine under a microscope, certainly we ought to coordinate with. Could you suggest how we would keep those missions and give flexibility at the same time?
Mr. STOCKTON. When I think of our own Rural Development mission area, we have the three agencies that make up that rural development mission area. I think one of the things we have been striving to do more recently is to have the three agencies collaborate, because we do have programs that can complement one another. We don't need to be out there competing with one another. But there may be things that the Rural Utility Service could do that the B&I cannot do, or there may be projects that we can team up.
It seems to me we need that kind of collaboration across the board so all the agencies could be looking at, within the Federal establishment, the kinds of programs that bring to rural America those things that will keep it a vibrant, healthy economy and keep people living in rural America so they can in fact support through the agriculture community the things and exports we do.
So I think there needs to be as much collaboration as we can. How we should be restructured I am not absolutely certain, but I think there needs to be more dialog.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So collaboration within rural development?
Mr. STOCKTON. And within the other programs that are available out there.
Page 512 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is there any existing now?
Mr. STOCKTON. Through the National Rural Development Partnership Councils there has been, over the last few years, efforts to at least start that dialog at that level.
I think the other thing is that it needs to be also at the State level, because we do not always have the right answers. We may have the programs and resources to make available, but the local level needs to make those decisions on how they want to utilize those resources.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Osborne?
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the members of the panel for coming today.
Currently, I think many of you are aware of the fact that roughly three-fourths of our farms rely on off-farm income to survive. Usually the wife and quite often the husband both work off the farm. Sometimes they drive 20 or 30 miles, and they make $7, $8, $9 or $10 an hour, which is not very productive.
We are currently losing our young people in small communities. Most high schools will lose three out of four graduates. Many small towns are drying up.
Where I am going with this is that it seems to me one of the things that can be most helpful is broadband service, high-speed international access, because roughly 90 percent of the businesses that are starting up today will tell you that they will not move into an area that does not have broadband services.
So I am very interested in this topic. I know the Governor spoke to it to some degree, and he is gone. Both of you probably have some interest. We are very interested in whatever thoughts you have as to how we might best accelerate the implementation of high-speed international access in rural areas.
Page 513 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Would either one of you care to take a shot at that?
Mr. FLUHARTY. Congressman, I could not agree more with your characterization. Your State is a founding member of the organization, and we have looked closely at telecommunications in Nebraska.
This is yet another example of the need to have that perspective within the committees that are now looking at the current bill we are discussing, but also, more directly, how that infrastructure relates to regionally appropriate economic development commitments from the Federal Government and the State government and how those commitments are linked to State commitments for entrepreneurship.
I see that not occurring today to the extent that it is needed. I would also go back to the good Congresswoman's comment about CDBG. One of the challenges I see in the CDBG, and it is alluded to in the testimony from some of our jurisdictional actors, is the challenge rural areas have in having to compete, as opposed to a direct grant.
Let me simply say that sort of an approach, ceding that in some way, would be a programmatic option in a more integrated effort from this community to look at specifically, specifically IT technology in a regionally appropriate economic development strategy. Could something like that be crafted, it would greatly enhance your district in moving forward with that specific Federal commitment.
What I see as the challenge is particularly some areas that are not able to be integrated either by a governor or a regional organization in building that approach. That is an area where targeted CDBG monies to rural areas could indeed be effective.
I will simply say in the current structure I do not see that occurring. That is why I think we do need a more comprehensive look. That is not to say all of USDA's IT programs are not effective, but across space that is a major failure, a major gap for rural development right now in our Nation.
Page 514 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOCKTON. Congressman, we do have a pilot program that provided funding at a $100 million loan level and $2 million grant level in 2001. The President's 2002 budget that is being worked on now on the Hill does include a continuation of the program at the $100 million level.
In addition, we are crafting the legislation that would be submitted to provide that permanent authorization to give us that kind of authority going forward that would address, at least through the Rural Utilities Service, a lending program that would provide funding for broadband facilities in rural areas.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Osborne.
I believe at this point we are at that particular juncture in the two-vote cycle that, with the indulgence of the panel, we should recess and return immediately after the two votes are completed.
[Recess.]
Mr. LUCAS. The subcommittee will now reconvene. I look to my left and I look to my right for additional questions.
I see none, and the panel is thanked for your insights and your input and you are dismissed.
And I would like to invite the second panel to the table: Mr. Gary Gorshing, executive director of the South Western Oklahoma Development Authority, on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations and the National Association of Counties, from Burns Flat, Oklahoma; the Honorable Glenn English, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association from Arlington, Virginia; Mr. John Zippert, director of program operations, Federation of Southern Cooperatives from Epes, Alabama; Mr. Joe Dudick, executive director, Partners for Rural America, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Mr. David Graves, president and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington, DC.
Page 515 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And with that, in the spirit of following that wonderful 5-minute rule so that the rest of my committee doesn't desert me, which only leaves me to go, I now call upon Mr. Gorshing. Please start when you are ready, Gary.
STATEMENT OF GARY GORSHING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH WESTERN OKLAHOMA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BURNS FLAT, OKLAHOMA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Mr. GORSHING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations and the National Association of Counties on the importance of a strong rural development title in the next farm bill.
My name is Gary Gorshing, and I am executive director of the South Western Oklahoma Development Authority in Burns Flat, Oklahoma. I also currently serve as secretary of NADO and Chair of the NADO Rural Development Task Force. SWODA serves 8 counties, 46 cities and towns, and 10 conservation districts within our region. In addition to providing planning and technical assistance to local governments, SWODA serves as the local delivery agent for Federal Aging and Workforce Development Programs, manages a 3,000-acre Industrial Airpark, assists communities with EDA, USDA and HUD infrastructures projects and administers 4 different loan programs.
SWODA is also now using a state-of-the-art geographic information system and global positioning system to help our communities develop enhanced capital improvement plans and comply with GASBY 34, a costly, unfunded mandate of the Government Accounting Standards Board.
On the local level, a policy board consisting of county and city elected officials, business leaders and citizens governs SWODA. This critically important working relationship with local elected officials has transcended to the national level and has led to a dynamic partnership between NADO and NACO.
Page 516 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NADO represents the 320 multijurisdictional regional development organizations nationwide that provide professional and technical assistance to over 2,000 counties and 15,000 small cities and towns. NACO, the only national organization that represents the 3,066 county governments, provides a host of services, including legislative, research and technical assistance to over 2,000 dues-paying members. NACO also has a new rural action caucus with 900-plus rural county officials.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly cover three main points in the Nation's current rural development programs. First, the current structure of Federal assistance programs fails to adequately provide rural communities with the tools to develop sustainable economies. When examining the different types of Federal assistance targeted to urban areas, ERS's rural areas, for example, an alarming trend is discovered. While urban communities receive a substantial amount of direct Federal grant funding for infrastructure development, such as HUD's Community Development Block Grant and DOT's Highway and Transit Programs, the bulk of rural assistance is in the form of loans, and transfer payments such as social security and ag payments.
By funneling billions of dollars in grants each year to urban areas, the Federal Government has given our metropolitan areas a distinct advantage over our rural communities. While urban areas are building the communities and industries of tomorrow, rural areas are struggling to preserve the economies and the legacies of yesterday.
Second, Mr. Chairman, USDA Rural Development Programs need to remain focused on supporting the basic needs of local communities. Support for water and waste water improvements ranked as the overwhelming number-one need of rural communities in recent membership surveys of both NADO and NACO. Program tools for transportation, health care, advanced telecommunications and local capacity building also ranked high on the list. Therefore, the Congress should expand the programs that afford local communities the flexibility they need to meet local needs such as Water and Waste Water Community Facilities, Rural Business Opportunity Grants and Intermediary Lending Programs.
Page 517 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, Mr. Chairman, the next farm bill should include a new program to build local capacity and support technical assistance efforts, thereby ensuring the long-term stability of rural America. Study after study by Federal agencies and universities have concluded that additional funding for Capacity Building and Technical Assistance Programs is one of the most pressing needs facing rural local governments. This stems from the fact that individual rural communities simply do not have the financial resources to hire and maintain professional staff, unlike their urban counterparts.
As a new NACO study found, over 60 percent of metropolitan counties have full-time economic development professionals, as opposed to only 34 percent of rural counties. As a result, it is often difficult for the Nation's 14,000-plus rural communities to access both public and private sector funds designed to help them make advancements. It also means that rural areas have an extremely difficult time dealing with burdensome red tape and paperwork required to apply for Federal dollars.
Potential solutions may be consolidating some existing Federal rural programs to induce block grants for rural county governments, like the HUD CDBG program for urban areas. Another option is to implement NADO's rural impact proposal, a multicounty approach to local capacity building. These options would help maximize Federal dollars to rural communities and allow for more local flexibility in decision-making authority.
The bottom line is that USDA Rural Development Programs need to be more focused on building long-term capacity in local communities and in providing more assistance directly to rural communities.
Before closing, NADO and NACO would also like to be on record as wholeheartedly supporting the four major policy recommendations of the bipartisan Congressional Rural Caucus to President Bush, including a White House Conference on Rural America, a Special Assistant to the President for Rural Affairs, designated rural policy leadership within each Federal Department and a senior-level Interdepartmental Working Group for Rural Affairs.
Page 518 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of NADO and NACO and I would welcome any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorshing appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. English.
STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN ENGLISH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I would request my written testimony be made a part of the record.
Mr. Chairman, for the record and members of the subcommittee, I am Glenn English, chief executive officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and that consists of nearly 1,000 electric cooperatives in 46 States across the country, representing some 34 million consumers.
I don't think that it comes as any revelation to this committee, Mr. Chairman, that rural America has not benefited from the general prosperity and economic growth that urban and suburban America has. Certainly that means that Federal Community and Economic Development Programs are increasingly important to rural America as they strive to make up for the lack of income that has occurred through agriculture.
Electric cooperatives, Mr. Chairman, strongly believe that rural Americans deserve the same opportunities, economic growth and security as their urban counterparts enjoy today. Also, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the biggest payoffs, as far as Rural Economic Development Projects, come from focusing on infrastructure and diversifying the community's economic base. If we look at the total portfolio of Federal Economic Development Programs, we see a wide array of different programs aimed in different directions. We would suggest that flexibility is indeed an important element—ingredient to making Rural Development Programs work; and in fact, we should look for ways in which we can mix and match these programs to meet local needs.
Page 519 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One fact of life is that not all areas of rural America are the same. Different regions of the country have different needs, and certainly we find differences in communities; and I am sure each and every one of you has observed that in your congressional districts—the differences in the community, the differences in leadership. And one point that I think we all must recognize is that given that kind of inequity, leadership, local leadership, is perhaps the most important point in a successful Economic Development Program. We can provide support, we can provide assistance through Federal programs, but as the local leadership, it is the local people that will determine whether or not that investment is well spent and whether that program is indeed successful.
Mr. Chairman, we do have some suggestions that we feel would be beneficial as we develop new farm legislation. One of those is affordable equity capital for rural business and cooperative ventures, and we feel very strongly that there is a need to broadly diversify our rural economies. And, of course, one of the things that is missing as we attempt to diversify rural economy is equity capital for rural business development.
There is no question that there has, for several years now, been a drastic shortage of available risk capital for rural America. Over the past 18 months, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association has worked to develop a broad coalition of financial institutions, rural business interests, in an effort to devise a Federal Private Partnership Program to address this particular problem. The group includes AgriBank; American Bankers Association; CoBank, the National Cooperative Bank, the National Cooperative Business Association, the Farm Credit Council, Independent Community Bankers of America, Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation.
Now, this legislation that we are suggesting, Mr. Chairman, would in effect create a dynamic partnership of these public-private sector institutions, partnering the Federal Government with these private institutions and developing an organization to be capable and willing of providing significant amounts of risk capital for a program, Venture Capital Program for rural America.
Page 520 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It would require Federal start-up funding, but would not, beyond that, be a Federal program; and it must be a program that allows for sound investment made by business decisions in the context of the private sector. And even though it is through a setting that would be a national funding kind of organization, the legislation supported by that coalition would essentially require only those with money at risk—and that would include, of course, the Federal Government—would be eligible to serve on the board of directors of a new funding organization.
And any new approach should involve local support on the front end. We believe that a local sponsoring entity should play an integral part before applying for any funds from this national organization.
Mr. Chairman, we are suggesting that this national organization receive a Federal contribution of $150 million to initially begin the new funding organization.
In addition, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, we would also suggest that we need a Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program. That is a program that is in place today. We would strongly urge that it be continued. It has been very successful, the so-called REDLAG program.
We would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we need new opportunities for rural development. Broadband has already been touched upon here in earlier testimony. We feel very strongly that that program is one that is desperately needed to successfully give rural America an opportunity to develop economically.
The Rural Utility Service Program has had a $100 million pilot program that has been in place for the last couple of years. We think that that should be extended for the life of the Farm Program. Also, biomass and biobased economy is an area that could prove to be very helpful to American agriculture as we attempt to put these very productive products that—the abundant products that we have been producing to work for a portion of the answer as far as the energy industry is concerned.
Page 521 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, very quickly, carbon sequestration is another possible program need for American farmers, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. English appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Zippert.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ZIPPERT, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS, FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN COOPERATIVES, EPES, AL
Mr. ZIPPERT. Good afternoon to the committee. I am John Zippert, the director of program operations for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives in Epes, Alabama; and I am here today, as well, representing the Rural Coalition's overall Campaign for Just Food and Farm Policy. And we submitted a statement that goes into some detail, and I am just going to hit some of the highlights of the things that are of greatest concern to us.
We strongly believe that community-based organizations are essential and experienced partners in any effective rural development strategy, and I think if you are trying to help the poorest people in the poorest communities, you need some people who are working from the bottom up, who are willing to do the hand-holding with people, who are willing to help people to go through the application process of all these programs, who are willing to work people through all of the technical and bureaucratic difficulties of getting some of these programs actually on the ground.
And community-based organizations are set up to do that. They are democratically controlled by people in those communities, and they are the kind of organizations that can make sure that these programs are instituted with justice and equality. We stress in our statement a number of the programs that are in existence that would supply capacity-building support and other support for community-based organizations in rural communities, and these programs should be continued and supported even more fully than they are now.
Page 522 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, we believe that Rural Development Programs and services must be a fundamental part of any cohesive national farm and food policy, and so we are in favor of supporting the programs that are in existence with the emphasis on those that are targeted and focused the most on low-income communities and low-income people; and we have a long list of housing programs that serve the farm worker community, that serve low-income people, and we would strongly suggest to you that when you look at these programs, to take a close look at supporting the direct loan programs over, in some cases, the guaranteed loan program, because if you are trying to reach the very lowest-income people, often those people have difficulty in getting a loan from the bank, and they do need the support of the government. They do need those deep subsidies and they do need programs that will really serve the poorest of the poor and people that we are working with in communities.
Our third point is that we really need a viable and equitable agricultural policy; that is fundamental to any rural development policy, and others who have spoken here before me today have stressed this point, that we are losing our family farmers in rural America. We are losing our black family farmers at a rate three or four times the rate of white farmers, but we are losing all family farmers in rural America.
As part of this farm bill, we must have a farm program that really addresses the needs of family farmers. And we again have a series of suggestions in our statement, including looking very closely at the issues of price and supply management and a farmer reserve, and looking closely at a different kind of farm program than we have had, again that really targets the benefits to family farmers that need the help and doesn't give the benefits, or the majority of the benefits, to people at the highest end of the income spectrum.
So I would just say to you as you look at rural development policy that you think about the fact that rural America, I think, is a place; and this program should be a program of economic and social justice for people, and many of the people left in rural America have been left behind, neglected, discriminated against and have not really seen the full benefits of these programs.
Page 523 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This, the farm bill of 2002, is an opportunity to do things a different way and a better way for rural people in rural America. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zippert appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Dudick.
STATEMENT OF JOE DUDICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARTNERS FOR RURAL AMERICA, HARRISBURG, PA
Mr. DUDICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you and the committee for holding this very important hearing, and also for providing us with the opportunity to appear before you. I would like to briefly summarize my rather long written statement.
My name is John Dudick. I serve as executive director of Partners for Rural America, which is the national organization of America's State rural development councils. The first State rural development councils were established just over a decade ago. Today, there are State rural development councils in 40 States, and we are committed to establishing councils in all 50 States.
SRDCs generally do not make policy. They generally do not deliver services or administer programs. However, as Governor Hoeven so well put it, there are several important things that State rural development councils and the organizations that comprise them try to do.
They facilitate greater coordination among Federal agencies. They promote greater collaboration among the Federal Government, other levels of government and the private sector. They provide feedback on how programs are working. They work to eliminate administrative and regulatory barriers that stand in the way of rural development at the local level, and they seek to empower local leaders so that they have the tools to identify local solutions to local challenges.
Page 524 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, specifically with regard to the farm bill and the rural development title, we have included in our testimony 7 concepts that we would ask that you consider as you draft that title. I will not go into them at this point.
I would like to spend most of the remainder of my time talking about an issue that we believe is extremely important, and that is the need to do a better job of coordinating rural development efforts in the United States. We believe this is an important issue for several reasons.
First, there are a great number of programs that benefit rural areas, but they are administered also by a great number of agencies;
Second, too often Federal agencies administer their programs in isolation;
Third, too often Federal agencies do not reach out to local other levels of government;
Fourth, the existence of so many programs and resources often results in duplication and in inefficiency;
Fifth, too often Federal programs do not operate within a holistic planning framework, resulting in fragmented efforts; and
Sixth, the effort to know about, apply for, administer and coordinate so many programs creates a great challenge to rural leaders who are already overburdened.
A 1994 General Accounting Office study identified almost 830 programs that benefit rural areas. In just the area of infrastructure they identified 84 programs administered by 13 different agencies.
Page 525 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The point is not that we have too many resources available to rural America; rural needs are great and growing. The point, though, is that increased coordination and collaboration are essential so that the people of rural America can receive the greatest benefit from the limited number of programs that are available.
The recognition that we need to approach rural development in a more coordinated and holistic fashion is not new. Our testimony today lists many past efforts going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt to identify ways of doing better coordination. Let me just emphasize a couple.
The 1980 Rural Development Policy Act directed USDA to, quote, ''Coordinate a national rural development program using the services of all executive branch agencies in coordination with State and local governments.'' The 1990 initiative that Governor Hoeven shunned and the 1992 report of the President's Council on Rural America made many excellent recommendations that still are as fresh today as they were a decade ago.
Last fall Senators Larry Craig and Kent Conrad and two of their colleagues introduced the National Rural Development Partnership Act. The current version of that bill actually was just introduced today in the Senate, and we hope that a companion bill will be introduced here in the House later in the summer.
And then, finally, earlier this year the Congressional Rural Caucus put forward its program for better coordinating rural efforts.
We believe that the benefits that can flow from this kind of coordination are clear. We believe it is also clear that there have been some excellent proposals put forward in the past that can be studied and brought to play as you draft the next farm bill.
Let me just briefly say a word about the financial condition, though, of the State rural development councils and the National Rural Development Partnership. From their beginning they have depended on voluntary contributions of the discretionary funds from several Federal agencies. This scheme has always been inadequate, and it finally broke down altogether last year; and had it not been for enlightened action on the part of the Bush administration earlier this year, the State councils would have ceased receiving Federal funds, and many of them would have had to suspend activities. That would have threatened one of the few in-place systems for facilitating the kind of coordination that I have talked about today.
Page 526 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman let me say again that we believe the next farm bill provides a great vehicle for addressing the issues of coordinating rural policy. We stand ready to work with you and the members of the subcommittee to do just that. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dudick appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Graves.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GRAVES, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks this afternoon will be in my capacity as president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. On behalf of our membership, we certainly want to thank you and members of the committee for inviting us to share our view this is afternoon with you on this very important topic.
You have heard today already that the rural economy is diversifying and probably should continue to become even more diverse. That probably is correct, but my remarks this afternoon will be restricted to the part of the rural economy that continues to be very significant, has for some number of years, and most likely will continue to be very significant; and that is agricultural commerce.
As we look to the future, the most important accomplishment for improving rural economy is to have the Federal Government do what it can do to help farmers be more successful. In that regard, we think that there is, as the Governor mentioned earlier and several other witnesses have indicated and alluded to, that there is a very special need to pay attention now, at this opportunity as we rewrite Federal farm legislation, to concentrate on how it is Federal programs can help farmers be more successful.
Page 527 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Paying out money, as has been the case in very large sums over the last several years, in our estimation, has not really helped solve the problem, a long-term problem. It has not helped farmers be more profitable. Those dollars did, in fact, provide assistance that the farmers needed in the short term.
We had a special task force assembled earlier this year that developed a long list of recommendations regarding what they thought would be necessary to help farmers be more successful in helping themselves. We believe that that is a very critical part of the success of any long-term strategy in dealing with the challenges facing American agriculture and rural—the rural economy.
Those recommendations have been developed into a legislative package that is being reviewed by not only members of the subcommittee and the total full committee, but also members of the Senate, and it is known as the Farmer Business and Income Opportunity Act.
Not all of the provisions in that package would come before this committee. What I wanted to do very briefly was highlight two of those items that we think are very key toward the objective of having the Federal Government be more helpful in helping farmers help themselves through cooperative efforts.
The first area deals with access to capital, and it has been mentioned earlier by several different panelists that access to capital is very important to rural businesses. It certainly is the case for farmer-owned businesses as well.
I want to call your attention to the USDA Business and Industry Loan Program and suggest that that program, at this point in its life, needs to be substantially modernized and expanded so that it has greater capacity to serve the needs of modern agriculture and modern farmer businesses.
There is an example in the history of the program where the BNI Loan Program provided a $25 million guaranteed loan to cotton farmers in West Texas for the purpose of building a textile plant. It is a denim mill. That activity took place in the early 1970's, and that particular cooperative is a member of ours.
Page 528 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We asked them what it would take today to build that same plant—and by the way, in most years, it has been very, very profitable for the farmers in that part of the country to own that mill. In the early 1970's, it took a $25 million loan, guaranteed loan to build that plant. Today, it would take over $100 million.
Now, there are any number of provisions to the BNI Loan Program operated by USDA today for the benefit of farmer-owned cooperatives that are as out of date as that provision. We would recommend that that program be modernized, at least make that program today be as helpful to farmer cooperatives as similar guaranteed loan programs operated by the USDA are for other borrowers.
The last item has to do with support in terms of research, education and technical assistance to farmer cooperatives not only in the development stage, but throughout their whole life; and that has to do with the need to revitalize the USDA program that is in support of farmer cooperatives. In particular, we recommend that there be a separate, freestanding agency devoted to support for farmer-owned cooperatives as was originally part of the USDA structure in previous years.
Mr. Chairman, that summarizes our statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you Mr. Graves.
Mr. Gorshing, what is NADO's opinion—for that matter, your opinion—of HUD's CDBG grant program?
Mr. GORSHING. They have set up almost opposing programs for both rural America and urban America. The program entitles urban areas to funding each year. In a rural area, the smaller communities have to compete with one another, and often they go for years without even receiving a CDBG grant.
Page 529 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In concept, the grant program is good. I think it could be made considerably better.
Mr. LUCAS. Is that the kind of thing, Gary, that USDA rural development should consider sometime, not perhaps the allocation system, but the general way that CDBG works in moving those resources out in the country?
Mr. GORSHING. As Mr. Fluharty said this morning, if crafted appropriately, yes, I think it could be.
Mr. LUCAS. And for a little background, Gary, point out to us in a development organization like SWODA, who do you report to? How are you accountable as a sub-State entity of government?
Mr. GORSHING. All local government communities, municipalities primarily and in our region, conservation districts also elect or choose the policy board members. So we answer directly to them, the local elected officials.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. English, in the past, of course, private banks have always been concerned about Federal Government being involved in equity funds or venture capital, those kinds of things. How did you manage to pull this group of attitudes together for this concept you outlined?
Mr. ENGLISH. I think, Mr. Chairman, it was a recognition of the fact that venture capital was not available in rural America; and while many people, on principle, would hold that it should be done another way, that under the circumstances, reality is such that we have got to get together and look at something a little different for rural America. And I think this is true of a lot of programs.
It is no question that this group is diverse, and quite frankly, in many areas they don't agree on policy. But this is one area that they did come together, they did agree, they did feel this was the best way to approach it.
Page 530 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have had funds available from the Department of Agriculture in the past, that it has not worked with in trying to provide this; but we felt with the matching funds, with the participants, with the people actually investing and with the communities themselves taking a part in, by having sponsors to carry their particular proposal to this private group, that this would be a better way to proceed and one that all could agree on.
Mr. LUCAS. That number of $150 million, Glenn, how was that arrived at?
Mr. ENGLISH. It was arrived at basically from the standpoint that this is money that has been available in the past for these programs over at USDA; and quite frankly, it hasn't worked out well. I don't recall what the exact number was previously, but this is roughly the same number that we have had in the past, if I remember correctly.
Mr. LUCAS. Joe, on page 3 of your testimony, you referred to a need to adjust funding levels for grants. Could you expand on that and be a little more specific about what needs to be adjusted and by how much?
Mr. DUDICK. Absolutely. There has been, over the last several years, a shift away from grants as the principal way of funding local projects to guarantees and direct loans. That is fine, but there are many places that are very poor; they have limited resources, and in order to get a project done, they need to have increased 578s of grant funding.
I think, for example, of water projects. In many cases, the monthly amount of the charge resulting from a new water system is really too much for poor people to afford. An increased amount of grant funding would help bring down those monthly charges. The same is the case with affordable housing, business development, things of that sort.
As far as the amount that the subcommittee should consider, I don't really have the information to provide that. There might be other organizations here and agencies who are directly in that business and could respond to that for you.
Page 531 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Joe.
Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you.
Mr. English, a couple of questions for you. Have you developed a rural analysis of the current bill that is before Commerce on the broadband?
Mr. ENGLISH. At this particular time, we are interested in promoting broadband. I am not familiar with the current bill that is being proposed before Energy and Commerce.
Mrs. CLAYTON. OK. The one that is called the Tauzin-Dingell bill, you haven't had a chance to——
Mr. ENGLISH. Not in detail.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I see. You don't want to be on record.
Mr. ENGLISH. I know the bill that you are talking about, and let me just say, Ms. Clayton, if I might, knowing both of those authors, I am sure that it is a fine bill.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I knew you would give the right answer. But I would assume that in either case broadband, whether it comes in that form or another, you are interested in seeing; but at least the proponents and the opposition, depending on how you look at it, use rural as a way of fostering whether it is good or bad. Those who say they are for it, say it is going to help rural; those who are against it, say it is not going to help rural.
So I was looking to you for some independent guidance.
Mr. ENGLISH. Could I make a comment?
Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes.
Mr. ENGLISH. And I think —and we have seen this—that many times, with the best of intentions, people use rural America as a way of moving legislation; and then, through the implementation—not the fault of the authors—most of the time through the implementation, it doesn't necessarily get directed where it was aimed.
Page 532 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And this is something that—I think anything that is in this realm, that is directed toward rural America, we have got to be very sensitive toward in making sure that the intent and the promise that that legislation has is, in fact, delivered to rural America.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Now, my understanding—again, the bill, or the proponents and the opposition—it is proposed as looking at telecommunication; and although you are in a cooperative, electric cooperative, rather than telecooperative, don't both the electric and the fiber optic—both have opportunities, it seems to me, that so what structure it goes through is still something ultimately, and I gather you can collaborate with the telephone people. Have you had any conversation with the rural telephone people?
Mr. ENGLISH. We have not, but you are correct in your assumption that we can work together with regard to this. I think the main point right now is to make sure that rural America is, in fact, brought up to speed with the rest of the country; and that is sadly lacking.
Mrs. CLAYTON. REDLAG, this has been an area that I have some concern; and I noticed you gave quite a bit of testimony to it. What are the suggestions that you would make and how can we improve REDLAG legislation?
Mr. ENGLISH. Well, this is a program that has been used by several of our members; and in fact, we have had cases in my home State of Oklahoma that have been involved.
There are, for instance, examples of—one of the cooperatives in Oklahoma had four of these zero interest economic development loans for a total of $761,000 generated 55 and 65 jobs. The difficulty that we run into on any of these economic development programs is that some programs may work for some areas and others may not. And this is the diversity that we have got in rural America, and as I am sure this committee is very familiar with, that diversity makes it very difficult to have a one-size-fits-all program for economic development in rural America. In this case, we have had—a number of our cooperatives have been able to utilize it, have been able to create jobs; and it has been productive.
Page 533 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. But you are saying that—what would be the diversity you would like to see? What changes would you like to—how would we give that flexibility?
This is—the one area that we think would be helpful is in the area of incentives as far as electric cooperatives to get involved. We have something of a balancing act. On one hand, we have got to make sure that our membership, who own the cooperative, the people of the community, recognize their money is being put at risk. On the other hand, the Congress some 20 years ago began—and this is whenever there were no increases available for economic development funds—began encouraging electric cooperatives and telephone cooperatives to become more active in rural development. Basically for this to be more effective, what would be an improvement would be more incentives in the area of assistance for cooperatives who would participate in it.
There is so much to cover.
Under the cooperatives, one of the—let me see if I have got it correct. You mentioned that we need to do more for the community development organization. You made the—this separate—you made the observation, as we are talking about faith-based community, we have the opportunity to strengthen the nonprofit organization in the community because of the lack of leadership and infrastructure.
Can you comment? What did you have in mind? How could we add to that capacity?
Mr. ZIPPERT. Well, in the statement, we have a number of programs. They are not all in the Department of Agriculture.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Right.
Mr. ZIPPERT. But some of them are and some of them, there is a program in HUD, the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program that was at $25 million—I think it has been zeroed out; needs to be put back in—provides money for local organizations to do capacity building, to have organizers and outreach workers and people who can work with people who have low incomes, who have difficulty in going through the kind of bureaucratic and technical maze to actually get at these programs.
Page 534 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have had people on our staff. It has taken people sometimes as much as 2 years for people to get from knowing about the Farmers Home 502 Program, knowing that it exists, to actually getting a loan, to go through the process of helping them to remediate their credit, helping them to get all of their documents together, to be able to get their lot identified and picked out and all of these steps.
If we leave the steps to the people themselves, they often do not happen. Without some hand-holding and some outreach work, those things don't happen.
So community-based organizations throughout rural America need to be supported, particularly targeted at the poorest places and the most low-income people, to get this job done.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
I think it is worth noting that the direct satellite, which was talked about last year, is an issue that the subcommittee is going to look upon very warmly this year.
With that, I turn to Mr. Osborne.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the panel for being here today.
I know, Mr. English, this is not your particular area of expertise, but I guess whenever you mention something it is fair game to ask you a question on it.
You mentioned carbon sequestration. We hear that term thrown around a lot. I am a little bit in a quandary as to how you implement such a program, who qualifies. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. ENGLISH. Indeed, Mr. Osborne, this is something that is very important to us and one that we think has the opportunity to provide additional income for farmers. It basically gets into tillage practices and making sure that that carbon goes into the ground instead of into the air. Farmers obviously can play a major role in that.
Page 535 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Electric cooperatives have their own electrical generation, and this can be a trade-off as far as the environment of this country, so it can make a significant contribution as far as the global warming issue while at the same time it can generate additional revenue for farmers. It seems to us it is a real win-win situation.
Electric cooperatives, much of our generation being in rural America, it is something we are very interested in working with farmers on. That, linked up with biomass, provides income opportunities for agriculture.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.
Mr. Zippert, you mentioned supply management. Do you have any particular way to implement supply management?
Mr. ZIPPERT. We have a detailed proposal on that. I would rather just give you the detailed proposal, because we have been working on this, but it is a complicated thing to get into in 1 or 2 minutes.
I think one of the things it does say for the Rural Development Program is that the cost of a program that went to price with supply management and a farmer-owned reserve would not cost as much as the billions of dollars that you have put out in the subsidy program and would free up resources to do some of these other things in rural America that are needed.
But we will get you our proposal, because it is four or five pages in-depth.
Mr. OSBORNE. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Dudick, you mentioned that a better coordination of different agencies of Rural Development would be necessary. Do you have any specifics as to what agencies would be eliminated—and I realize there are a lot of them—or what should be combined? I think your principle is well taken. Do you have any specifics, either in writing or here today, that you would like to offer?
Page 536 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DUDICK. We have some additional information we can get to you.
Our view is that the first step really is to get people working together, talking to each other, coming together around the table. Obviously, when one talks about eliminating a program or eliminating an agency, there is always a constituency of interest for that program or agency, and that is very difficult. So we feel if we can get people working together that we can get many of the results we are looking for.
Let me give you one example. In my State of Pennsylvania we had, of course, Rural Housing Programs and Community Development Programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and also by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. We had a couple of State agencies. They were not talking to each other.
The State Rural Development Council brought all of those agencies together and started to have them feel comfortable working together. The result of that was when the time came to do the consolidated State plan, USDA changed its planning horizon so that it would match that of the State. HUD did the same thing. So now we had multiple Federal and State agencies all working off the same plan to provide resources to rural America.
So we would suggest that is the first place to begin.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.
Mr. Graves, one quick question. You said that cooperatives should provide more support to research. I am not real clear in how cooperatives are engaged in research. Maybe you could explain that to me.
Mr. GRAVES. In previous years, there was an agency, a free-standing agency, in the Department of Agriculture that had its own budget. The budget was divided between research projects and technical assistance projects and education projects.
Over the years and in a recent reauthorization or reorganization of USDA, the agency no longer is a free-standing agency. It no longer has, in fact, a line-item budget. Activities for the office are funded out of the Department of Agriculture salary and expense budget. It makes it very difficult to do much long-term planning and have any permanent interaction with the industry.
Page 537 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think that if we could just back the clock up, reestablish a line item in USDA's budget that is specifically earmarked for research, technical assistance and education in support of farmer cooperatives, the staff at USDA would be able to return to a more definite planning horizon working with universities, the co-op centers around the country, as well as cooperatives to identify the activities or the projects or the questions that need to be researched.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Phelps?
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for allowing this hearing to take place. It is valuable for all of us to talk about rural development. Thank you, panel.
My questions will go out to all of you to respond however you think is appropriate. I always try to summarize what I think I have heard in my own mind.
From the first panel as well as from all of you, I think what I have heard loud and clear in a general sense is that rural areas of the Nation need access to capital, flexibility in order to take those programs that either come from Federal and State governments to work best, how the local people think is the best way, and the proper tools to work with it so as to compete in—we hate to say it—but really in terms of even urban areas within our own States.
I do not know—I have heard a lot of good ideas. I think that these are things that we can hopefully improve upon. But let me just touch upon, for example, access to capital. Is it your understanding—I was 14 years in the Illinois legislature. Really, our small community banks turned to interstate banking, branch banking. There are a few still, you might say, that are independent in the sense of the word that we can think about independence, but, quite frankly, there are not still community banks.
Page 538 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is my understanding that the interstate banking world—even though I did not support the premise at that time, through a lot of the legal and policy-setting—that there ought to be more of a pool of funds to help local and regional farm and rural communities, but, instead, the local banks in my area look upon them as bad risks. Therefore, there is more strain on venture capitalists to say, no, do not come in and invest in here, knowing that the risk is bad. Even—we do not want to invest even in our own communities. I have seen farmers that I grew up with—there have been three generations that cannot go to local banks like they used to.
Now, do we have the venture capitalists to step forward, knowing those terms? And how much seed money, then, would there be to encourage those questionable risk venture capitalists or local banks that do want to still have a commitment to the community? There are some. How much money do we put in to try to convince these people that this is the start-up of a successful project, as Mr. English had outlined? Do you have any thinking along those terms?
Mr. ENGLISH. I will take a crack at it.
There are a lot of issues that come to bear here. One is the leadership in the community itself. You are right. I think there are communities out there that, quite frankly, don't want rural development. They don't want to grow. In many communities they don't have the leadership for a successful program. That is the reality of it.
Second, we do have in many areas people who, quite frankly, are not interested in investing their money, whether it is local banks or other financial institutions that may not be interested in advancing that.
Third, there is the question of the risk itself with a particular project, how great the risk is, what are the opportunities of success. By the very definition, this is a reality that we have to face, that much of rural America is very risky to invest in. That is well recognized. Certainly we have had a number of our members, electric cooperatives have invested their funds, and indeed, it has proved costly.
Page 539 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we are suggesting is this, that we do need to take a little different approach to this in being able to evaluate these funds. Local banks should be able to participate in assisting their community if they are so inclined, and they should be able to leverage the money that they have available. They should be able to make the case to have the participation of those national funds through a larger investment community. That opportunity does not exist today, so that is what we are suggesting we should do.
I know so often politically there is always the temptation to say, well, we passed a program and, therefore, we have taken care of rural America. It is far more complicated, far more difficult, and, as many who have sat there before you for many years have found, it is not always successful.
Mr. PHELPS. Isn't it ironic that politicians and all of us that want to make things work and have the rhetoric to convince folks of our sincerity—I would point out what Mrs. Clayton said about the Telecommunications Act. The very people that are cosponsors of this bill actually are using the premise of helping the rural people to pass the bill. At least they are trying to convince me.
From what I have read and know so far, that is a pretty complicated business, and those are the very people that will be defeated, in some sense of the word, if we look at a few parts of the version of the bill and are convinced that it is going to back into a monopoly. Who is going to invest in a no-man's land?
So we use it from an emotional standpoint to say that this is good, all-American stuff. But sometimes I am frustrated and I am airing it out for this question.
I see my time is just about up, although I didn't get a chance to ask the first round. We got interrupted by a vote.
I just want to ask one final question. The flexibility is what I mentioned to you. That was loud and clear. When you talk about flexibility, I think we all resort to block grants and say that that should be available.
Page 540 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other part that is ironic and that is a dilemma, too, and I know the difference between the two, is that if you have an urban area that is so powerful and so large, as is in my State of Illinois—I live 20 miles from the Kentucky border, 400 miles south of Chicago—when there are funds sent to the State, guess how many downstate legislators we have to dictate the distribution of the funds? Not very many. I am sure that is the case in a lot of other States.
So when we are talking about flexibility going to the State and helping local people, the risk in down-State Illinois, it is pretty much rural farmland. Believe me, we are stepchildren. We have had the brunt end of policies that are not necessarily—they are pretty ugly, sometimes.
So I am just saying, the flexibility that we ask for sometimes penalizes us rather than helps us, because the situation is different.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel's testimony.
I am particularly interested in the whole area of value-added agriculture and the importance and impact that can have on the rural economy and obviously across the country in South Dakota and in other States.
We have witnessed the successive years of poor prices for our producers, that when agriculture is not doing well, not much of the rural economy is doing well. We are so much at the mercy of those who buy our products, and there are fewer and fewer of them out there and less and less competition, it seems. So we really end up having to take whatever price is offered. Of late, that has not been very good. With the increasing costs of energy and other inputs, it is increasingly difficult for our producers to make their operations pencil out. That has a profound impact not just on the farm operation but on the entire rural economy.
Page 541 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, as I said earlier, I am very interested in what we can do to diversify our economic base, to reach up the agricultural marketing chain and capture more of the value of those commodities that we produce at the point of production.
With that in mind, also I would say, too, that I am very interested in promoting and encouraging more farmer-owned cooperatives.
One question I guess I would direct to you, Mr. Graves, is do you believe that most producers know they can join or establish a farmer-owned cooperative and that they have access to the programs that are available to them? Is that something that you think they are aware of?
If not, how can we educate them about the various loan and grant programs that are available?
Mr. GRAVES. Congressman, I think the answer to your first question is, yes, most farmers know about farmer cooperatives. By our estimates, probably four out of five farmers in the United States do business to some degree with a farmer cooperative.
But, that is not the whole story. Today, farmers—of all of the inputs that farmers buy throughout their production, regardless of what it is, they only buy 27 percent from a farmer cooperative. Of all of the production that comes off of American farms at the point of first sale, only about 28 percent is marketed through a cooperative.
Now, it varies from industry to industry. Dairy is a good example, where that number may be upwards of 80 percent. But we have a lot of progress that can be made in having farmers utilize this tool, the tool being a business that they would own where the profits of that business would accrue to them, not shareholders located someplace else.
The reason we recommend that we back up and reestablish an agency at USDA whose whole entire life is dedicated to the support, research and oversight of farmer cooperatives goes to your last question, how can we educate farmers more, how can we help them get a better understanding, and how can we change those statistics.
Page 542 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We often want to complain about the fact that today farmers are taking in only about 20 cents out of every consumer dollar, and we wonder why. We point to the late 1940's and 1950's when that percentage was upwards of 47 percent, and we wonder why.
Now, I know low commodity prices contribute to it some. I understand that statistical aspect of it. But by far the most significant factor contributing to that change has been the fact that consumers no longer buy close to what the farmer is selling.
Staff laughs at me with the example I use, but if you will bear with me, just use the common, everyday old biscuit and wheat flour. In the 1940's and 1950's, when that 47 percent number was accruing to the farmer, it was because the consumer was buying wheat flour, essentially, primarily, and making the biscuits.
I know somebody may cook and make biscuits from scratch today, but my wife does not, and I would not know how. But how do you buy biscuits? People didn't quit eating biscuits. They buy them cooked, oftentimes stuffed with a sausage or egg, delivered to the house hot with the rest of the meal.
The farmer is not selling any of that. At best today what the farmer is selling is the flour and in many cases still selling only the wheat. So what we have here on our hands is the consumer has moved further away from the farmer in terms of what the farmer is selling.
If we want the farmer to get a larger share of the consumer dollar, we have to—you will never move the consumer back. My wife is not going to start making biscuits from scratch. We have to move the farmer closer to the consumer; and it is through exactly, Congressman, what you were talking about. Farmers need to be in the business of selling value-added commodities, not bulk commodities. Hence, programs like the USDA business-industrial loan program must be modernized so it can be more supportive and helpful to farmers in helping themselves.
Page 543 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a long answer, but I think that summarized the situation pretty well.
Mr. THUNE. That is precisely my point, and exactly why I think we have to find more ways of encouraging that type of organizational structure in terms of farmers investing and trying to lower some of the capital barriers that exist to creating more value-added opportunities.
It sounds like we may need some more cooking education programs in America, too. I don't know if that is true or not.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. We need more cooking education for the men in the family.
Mr. Chairman, speaking to Mr. Graves, his description of how we had 47 percent is also descriptive of the area that we moved away from, not only in terms of value-added or nearness or proximity of the products we consume, but there was a time in history when a substantial number of people lived in rural areas and engaged in farming. Now only 6 percent of the people do that, and we still represent roughly between 20 and 22 percent of the population. So farming, like those commercial banks that were talked about, has gotten bigger but less people are engaged in it.
I know cooperatives are not, in my judgment, used to the maximum to facilitate that transition. We moved from an agrarian, rural community to a mixed rural community where agriculture is key to it, but it is not the only one. It is the wife who works somewhere, who teaches somewhere, and sometimes even the male who has a part-time job to supplement that. So we almost have to recognize the reality of the day and find structures to try to accommodate it.
Page 544 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I am a fan of the cooperatives. We have three here, the electric cooperatives, and we have the community development cooperative and now the farm cooperative. I think the cooperative structure has been underutilized in maximizing buying power and new entrepreneurs. It can be day care. It can be a variety of businesses. It can be health care.
So I want to challenge you and the others in cooperatives to see how that structure can be maximized. I think education is a key, but I also think we have a structure called the extension service that we can use more effectively to make sure that that is happening.
There is a distrust among farmers, and they are instinctively independent people. When we talk about a cooperative, they have to think about that a long time. But I think this economy is causing them to rethink that, so I want to find ways, too, where we can make sure that happens.
In my last few moments I just want to talk about housing. Rural housing 515, we have moved drastically from what the USDA is doing with rural housing. In my part of this country, rural housing, rental housing, housing itself is the issue, not only the affordability but the availability.
But when we come to rental housing, where we are trying to recruit teachers, new people, new individuals moving out of the family home cannot find rental housing. This is in your testimony, about the need to increase rural housing.
Also, we are losing the subsidy. How do we get that subsidy back? Where is that? Would you describe that? Can you speak to that?
Mr. ZIPPERT. The problem has been that the 515 Program, which had funding to build rural housing, rural rental housing and rural cooperative housing—although not many units of cooperative housing were built—the appropriations have been so limited that it has not been possible to build very many more units of housing. I think that is a problem, and that needs to be looked at. There is a way to do it.
Page 545 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think there were some problems with some of the way builders took advantage of that program, and that was used to kill a program that is really vitally needed. The program needs to be looked at, and the abuses—the provisions need to be put in there to eliminate the abuses but to continue the program, because there are significant numbers of people, very low-income people, who are living in substandard and crowded housing conditions for whom the 515 Program was the only way out.
We have built a number of those units through the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. It was a struggle to get each one. We are still trying to do that, but the resources are very limited. Your committee and the committee on Appropriations subcommittees should look at putting more resources into that.
Mrs. CLAYTON. We will not have time now, but if you could submit to this committee ways in which we can streamline the process and monitor the abuses and how we can clean up that program so it can be a viable program, I would appreciate it.
Roughly, now we have about $170 million. The program at one time, according to your testimony, had $540 million. So, hopefully, we can get some suggestions on how can we can clean the program up so people can get more confidence in it. Because there are people with outhouses or people living in shacks all across America and particularly on the Indian reservations. Individuals have been coming there, and they cannot get the program to work for them.
The money is there. In fact, there is underutilization of about $35 million at this time, carrying over. So either the program implementation is a barrier, or people do not know about it, or something is happening in the process. In addition to us ratcheting down the appropriation, even that which is there is not being fully engaged for the benefit of people who desperately need housing in rural America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 546 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Any additional questions?
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Mr. LUCAS. Proceed, David.
Mr. PHELPS. You alluded to the biomass, biodiesel. You did not mention ethanol. Does anyone have feelings about that?
Mr. GORSHING. The Ethanol Program, of course, falls under the overall biomass idea, so I think it is very important that we utilize those fuels, which would include ethanol.
Mr. PHELPS. Empowerment zones, thumbs up or down on what they tend to do, what they have done?
Mr. ZIPPERT. One of the things that I intend to include in a revision of my statement before it goes in is to support the rural Enterprise Communities and Empowerment Zones, but particularly the Enterprise Communities, because it was a chance to do this in more places than just empowerment zones.
I think there is a need for more rural Enterprise Communities and for some continued funding for the round one Enterprise Communities who have used up their funds.
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. With that, the committee wishes to thank the panel for your insights and your wisdom.
Without objection, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses by witnesses to any question posed by a member of the panel.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
Page 547 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of David Graves
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Graves and I am President of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC). On behalf of NCFC, I want to commend you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to share our views.
We believe a strong rural development title with increased emphasis on helping farmers help themselves through cooperative self-help efforts is critical to the success of any long-term strategy for dealing with the challenges facing American agriculture and rural America.
NCFC is a national trade association that represents America's farmer owned cooperatives. Our members include nearly 100 regional marketing, supply and credit cooperatives whose members, in turn, include over 3,500 local cooperatives which are owned and controlled by a majority of America's nearly 2 million individual farmers.
These farmer cooperative businesses handle, process, and market virtually every type of agricultural commodity grown and produced in the U.S.; manufacture, distribute and market farm supplies—including seed, feed, chemicals, fertilizer and fuel; and provide credit and related financial services, including export financing for and on behalf of their farmer owners.
The farmers' ownership and participation in these businesses provide them with the opportunity to capture more of the added value of what they produce beyond the farm gate as well as gain access to a more dependable and competitively priced source of farm inputs and products. Being farmer owned, earnings derived from these activities are returned to the cooperative's farmer owners on a patronage basis, which adds to their total income. In addition, with nearly 300,000 full time and seasonal workers, farmer cooperatives also represent a significant source of employment, which further contributes to the economic and tax base of thousands of local communities across the United States.
Page 548 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is the fourth year in a row that Congress has been faced with trying to deal with the immediate challenges facing U.S. agriculture by providing farmers with emergency economic and disaster assistance. Thanks to the leadership of this Committee and the generous support of Congress, for many farmers, such emergency assistance has been the difference between survival and going out of business. This is reflected in the fact that such assistance now accounts for as much as two-thirds of net farm income.
The current business environment continues to be very challenging. The farmer's share of the consumer food dollar has declined to where it now represents just 20 cents—its lowest level ever. Reversing this decline would substantially improve the farmer's economic well being. For example, increasing the farmer's share by just one cent to 21 cents would generate an additional $6 billion in total income. The challenge of course is how, given the current business environment and trends.
In our view, the best way to help achieve this is to maintain and strengthen the ability of farmers to join together in cooperative self-help efforts. To be successful, however, farmers and their cooperative businesses must be strategically positioned to be able to compete in what clearly is a rapidly changing global marketplace.
A special NCFC task force, whose members included both farmer members and senior management representing a cross-section of farmer cooperatives from across the country, has identified a number of actions that would help encourage and promote such cooperative self-help efforts, which are highlighted in the attached summary. Specifically, the comprehensive proposal, referred to as the ''Farmer Business and Income Opportunity Act,'' recommended the following:
Providing improved access to capital through credit and investment initiatives for farmer cooperatives for the benefit of their farmer owners.
Without question, access to capital is one of the greatest challenges facing farmer cooperatives. Providing farmers and their cooperatives with improved access to capital is needed to help gain ownership in value-added activities beyond the farm gate, to invest in new equipment, to modernize and expand, and meet costly environmental and other regulatory requirements. To help meet this challenge, the task force recommended several actions, including:
Page 549 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Modernizing and expanding USDA's Business and Industry Loan Guarantee Program for farmer cooperatives consistent with other similar USDA credit programs. This would include providing up to $10 billion in guaranteed loan authority, eliminating user fees, removing the current cap on loans, and providing additional lending flexibility in the case of farmer cooperatives consistent with recognized commercial lending practices and generally accepted accounting principles. More specific recommendations and details are attached.
Clarifying existing authority under the 1996 farm bill providing guaranteed loans to farmers for the purchase of stock in a new, value-added business, to include both new and existing farmer owned cooperative businesses.
Eliminating what effectively is a ''triple tax'' on cooperative dividends on preferred stock under the dividend allocation rule. This would provide farmers and their cooperatives a much needed tool to help raise equity capital—without diluting farmer returns or their ownership in their cooperative.
Providing tax incentives to help attract capital and encourage investment in farmer owned cooperative businesses, such as contained in H.R. 1094 as introduced by Rep. John Thune and others.
Establishment of an equity capital fund such as that proposed previously by Senators Harkin and Craig, among others, to help attract private sector capital and investment in rural businesses, including farmer cooperatives.
Clarifying certain tax laws relating to the organization and operation of farmer cooperatives for the benefit of their farmer owners. These include:
Allowing farmer cooperatives that qualify as small ethanol producers to pass through the current 10 cent per gallon tax credit to their farmer owners.
Expanding the definition of cooperative marketing in include value-added processing through animals.
Page 550 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allowing farmer cooperatives organized as section 521 cooperatives to seek declaratory judgement regarding their status under the Internal Revenue Code similar to other types of entities.
Revitalizing USDA research, education and technical assistance programs in
support of farmer cooperatives for the benefit of their farmer owners.
Re-establishing a separate agency within USDA totally dedicated and focused on encouraging and supporting cooperative self-help efforts by farmers together with needed funding to carry-out related programs—including research, education and technical assistance. (Not less than $6 million should be specifically authorized for the new agency to be called the Farmer Cooperative Business Service, along with an additional minimum of $6 million for research, education and technical assistance grants relating to farmer cooperatives.)
In addition, the Under Secretary for Rural Development should be designated the Under Secretary for Rural Development and Cooperatives.
Maintaining and strengthening Value-Added Technical Assistance Grants program authorized under the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. The program should be maintained at not less than $25 million annually to enhance the ability of farmers to become more involved in value added activities beyond the farm gate. (According to USDA, more than 200 applications are currently pending, amounting to over $50 million in requests, in response to an initial level of $10 million to be awarded. This suggests that as much as $100 million could be potentially utilized.)
Sense of Congress resolution to reaffirm support for farmer cooperatives and to ensure that Federal policies and program serve to encourage and enhance the ability of farmers to join together in cooperative self-help efforts.
Mr. Chairman, we believe enactment of this package would provide farmers with a greater opportunity to improve their income from the marketplace, better manage their risk, capitalize on potential market opportunities, and compete more effectively in a rapidly changing global economy. Accordingly, we look forward to working with you and the members of this Subcommittee, as well as the full Committee, to help achieve these important goals.
Page 551 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you. This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to responding to any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
Statement of Governor John Hoeven
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here to testify. I am John Hoeven, Governor of the State of North Dakota, and I am here today representing the National Governors Association where I currently serve as a member of the Committee on Natural Resources. I want to discuss rural development policy and its importance to North Dakota and to our Nation's Governors.
The Governors place a very high priority on maintaining family-based agriculture. Keeping families on farms is critically important to the economies of our states. We must support traditional agriculture, but income from non-traditional sources is an increasingly important factor in farm income. The ability to participate in value-added agriculture processing and niche marketing is essential to keeping a farming operation viable, and thus sustaining the rural economy.
The economic well being of all our citizens depends on a healthy rural economy. However, rural communities are faced with many diverse and complex economic challenges. Many rural Americans have been left behind while other Americans are benefiting from significant advancements in the quality of their economic and social lives. We, as a nation, pay very high economic and social costs when a large segment of the labor force is left behind.
To effectively address the many needs of our Nation's rural communities, we recommend the following: increased flexibility for states in implementing and targeting Federal funds, access to more effective and adaptable credit programs, improved coordination of Federal and state rural development services, and rural access to technology in order to provide greater opportunities for rural economies to compete in local, state, and global markets.
Page 552 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Community Development Block Grants to States
The single best allocation to states to assist in rural development projects are discretionary block grants that provide states the flexibility to target the use of funds where they can be most effective. Federal formula funding often overlooks unique needs and infrastructure development that may be crucial to community and business development.
North Dakota receives approximately $6 million in Community Development Block Grants each year. Roughly half of the money is allocated to eight regional councils within the state for local infrastructure and technical assistance needs. The remaining funds are utilized on a state level and are targeted to business creation that generates wealth, jobs and opportunities in rural North Dakota. The funding can help underwrite infrastructure costs that might otherwise derail worthwhile projects such as an industrial park created to bring new businesses and value-added processing to a rural community. The block grants allow the state to effectively target the funds to the priority needs that vary from region to region. In my opinion, discretionary block grant funding is the most effective program we have and every effort should be made to increase funding in this area.
Access to Credit
Access to affordable credit through interest buy-downs, loan guarantees, and direct loans is another key aspect of a comprehensive rural development strategy. Economic development progress in rural areas depends on a stable source of credit that meets the needs of a new generation of producers working with rural communities to diversify their economies.
Three categories of credit programs are vital to the enhancement of our rural economies:
I. Credit to assist beginning farmers and ranchers.
Beginning farmer credit programs ensure that young producers have access to the capital necessary for them to purchase land and equipment. These programs help stabilize rural communities by making it possible for families to stay on or create their family farm, the foundation of our rural economies.
Page 553 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The beginning farmer loan program should be expanded and the guaranteed loan program's qualification requirements and loan limits should be reviewed to ensure they meet critical needs for credit at reasonable rates.
II. Credit to help expand existing farm and ranch operations.
Federal credit assistance is needed to help our farmers and ranchers expand their operations and gain the benefits of economies of scale. Two such examples in my state are family and cooperatively owned dairy and livestock feeding operations. These operations represent value-added agriculture in its most basic form. By turning grain and forage into milk and meat, these operations change raw commodities into higher valued products. Unfortunately, USDA funds are currently restricted from participating in feeding operations because they are classified as production agriculture. The credit programs should be expanded to support these types of wealth creation ventures.
Credit programs to help promote value-added agricultural processing ventures.
Finally, credit guarantee programs, interest assistance, and direct loans are important tools for encouraging independent family farmers to invest in value-added agricultural processing ventures. Those ventures give producers the ability to greatly enhance the economic position of their commodity producing farm operations through vertical integration.
North Dakota has successfully utilized the USDA Rural Development Business and Industry loan guaranty program. The B&I guaranty program has enabled our banks to provide financing for business ventures across the state. Currently, value-added companies are converting durum and wheat into pasta and flour, processing livestock into retail packaged meat cuts and creating specialty crop marketing cooperatives, all with the B&I program helping to mitigate the risk for the financial institution.
North Dakota also works to provide rural economic development assistance through the state owned Bank of North Dakota. In partnership with Federal rural development efforts, our one-of-a-kind state-owned institution offers loans to beginning farmers, and provides credit guarantees and interest assistance for value added agricultural processing investments. These programs are greatly enhanced by the availability of ample and flexible Federal credit programs. This state/Federal partnership can serve as an example of how the other rural development efforts can effectively function.
Page 554 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While effective, current Federal programs must offer a greater degree of flexibility and recognition of unique state situations. Credit support limits should be raised in recognition of larger capital requirements of today's businesses. For example, in North Dakota we have found the USDA Business and Industry assistance has higher limits than Small Business Administration guarantees and thus are more effective with larger capital projects.
Program Coordination
I want to encourage the Federal Government to consolidate and coordinated the individual Federal rural development programs into fewer, more flexible programs to provide states with development grants, loans, research grants, and technology transfer support for rural development.
While specific programs—such as the infrastructure programs of the USDA Rural Development or the business assistance programs of the U.S. Department of Commerce—are available to rural communities, they have not been sufficiently coordinated, nor has there been a sustained commitment to either long-term funding or to making program assistance available to specific communities over time.
Flexibility is crucial because states are better positioned to recognize a threatened community within their borders, and they are also more precisely equipped to target resources efficiently and effectively to address local needs.
The NGA urges you to acknowledge and utilize an existing mechanism that was established for the purpose of coordination of programs. In 1990, NGA joined with USDA to establish what has become known as the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP). The NRDP was established to help rural community leaders, government policy makers, and agency program administrators coordinate their efforts to address rural community needs. A major element of the partnership is the creation of state rural development councils (SRDCs), which are collaborative bodies consisting of Federal, state, tribal and local government officials plus representatives from the private sector.
Page 555 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The SRDCs were designed to improve the employment opportunities, incomes and well being of rural Americans by strengthening their capacity to compete in the national and international economy. Forty states including North Dakota have established Rural Development Councils, which seek to identify the rural needs within their respective states and to coordinate the broad range of public and private resources to respond to those needs. Individual Governors have called on the councils in their states to support Federal and state initiatives.
Technology. The barriers to instant information and access to technology remains high for rural communities. According to a Department of Commerce 1999 report, people living in rural areas lag behind other Americans in access to high-speed Internet connections necessary to stay in step with the rest of the nation, and to access the opportunities created by the new economy.
Although DOC estimates that 91 percent of all American households will be online by 2005, the quality of that access will continue to be unequal for rural areas. While 65 percent of US cities enjoy cable or DSL service, less than 5 percent of towns with fewer than 10,000 people have access to either high-speed DSL or cable service. These high-speed connections provide Internet access up to 100 times faster than those available over ordinary phone lines, the next generation medium for distance learning, telemedicine, and vital economic development resources, and rural America deserves equal access to them.
The Internet is also an important tool for economic empowerment. Technology access is essential for participation in the digital economy. Investments in rural technology infrastructures will help rural areas overcome the two major barriers to economic growth: distance from markets and small economies of scale.
North Dakota has developed a statewide broadband Internet access initiative. Like rural electrification, rural telephone exchanges, and rural water development, the Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that people outside of urban areas have access to the tools of a modern economy. We have received Federal assistance through the e-rate subsidy financed through the universal access fund. This program needs to be continued. We encourage Congress to ensure that rural America keeps pace with the rest of the country in technology advancements. Development of world-class technology education and access will enhance the entrepreneurial opportunities in rural areas and will ensure that all of America enjoys the benefits of the information economy.
Page 556 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conclusion
Greater state discretion in Federal program management will make rural development efforts more strategic, responsive and beneficial. Direct block grant funding would help reduce Federal bureaucracy while providing states with the greatest opportunity to meaningfully move rural development forward in America. Enhanced credit programs and better coordination between Federal and state government will support capital formation needs for farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses. Federal help to fund information technology will ensure that there is no ''digital divide''. A flexible, coordinated approach between Federal programs and state government will help ensure that rural and urban America grow together as we move into the 21st century.
Statement of Gary Gorshing
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to submit testimony today on the importance of a strong and comprehensive rural development title in the upcoming farm bill. My name is Gary Gorshing, and I am the Executive Director of the South Western Oklahoma Development Authority in Burns Flat, Oklahoma. I also currently serve as the Secretary of the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) and Chairman of NADO's Rural Development Task Force. About NADO and Regional Development Organizations: The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) provides training, information and representation for regional development organizations serving the 82 million residents of small metropolitan and rural America. The association, founded in 1967 as a national public interest group, is a leading advocate for a regional approach to community and economic development.
NADO members known locally as councils of government, economic development districts, local development districts, regional planning commissions and regional councils provide valuable professional and technical assistance to over 2,000 counties and 15,000 small cities and towns. They also administer and deliver a variety of Federal and state programs, based on local needs. Programs include aging, census, community and economic development, emergency management, small business financing, transportation and workforce development. Each region is governed by a policy board of elected officials, business leaders and citizen representatives. Associate members of NADO include state, county, city and town officials; educational and nonprofit organizations; utilities; and businesses and individuals.
Page 557 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA) serves eight counties, 46 cities and towns, and ten conservation districts within the region. In addition to providing planning and technical assistance to local communities, SWODA delivers aging services as an Area Agency on Aging; administers four loan program including USDA IRP, SBA 7A loan Guaranty Program and 504 loan program and a SWODA revolving loan fund; manages the 3,000-acre Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark, a former defense facility; administers local Workforce Investment Act programs; and assists local communities with EDA, USDA and HUD Community Development Block Grant proposals, rural fire defense initiatives, solid waste projects, historic preservation efforts and other community development issues.
Policy Priorities for the Upcoming farm bill
In crafting the next farm bill, Mr. Chairman, the members of the National Association of Development Organizations strongly urge the committee to develop and support a comprehensive rural development title. We believe there are three main points that support our position.
Rural communities need Federal development assistance programs and policies that allow them to identify, address and meet local needs.
USDA rural development programs should remain focused on supporting the basic needs of local communities, such as water and wastewater systems, small business development finance, telecommunications and housing.
Local capacity building and technical assistance programs, such as the proposed Rural IMPAC program, are essential to the long-term stability and recovery of rural communities.
First, Mr. Chairman, rural communities need Federal development assistance programs and policies that allow them to identify, address and meet local needs, whether they are basic infrastructure, education, health care, small business development, telecommunications or transportation related. As the following data demonstrates, rural America is a diverse, complex and constantly evolving place. That is why a ''one-size-fits-all'' Federal rural development policy is impractical, unreasonable and ineffective.
Page 558 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Home to almost one-third of the Nation's population (equivalent to the urban population), small town and rural America is a diverse and constantly changing place. Rural America compromises 2,192 of the Nation's 3,066 counties (counties of 50,000 and below), 75 percent of all local governments and 83 percent of the Nation's land.
While the common perception is that rural Americans only live in the South, Midwest and Great Plains, more rural Americans live in New York, for example, than rural Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming combined. States with the largest total rural populations include Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina and Ohio.
While no one industry dominates the entire rural economy, the service sector now accounts for almost 50 percent of employment, with manufacturing employing twice as many people as all natural resource production activities combined, including agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining. While still an important fabric of rural life, farming represents less than eight percent of rural jobs and 50 percent of farm families rely heavily on off-farm income.
Demographic trends also suggest that rural Americans are proportionally older, more likely to live in poverty and less educated than their urban counterparts. However, individual rural communities are constantly changing and evolving, as many are becoming booming retirement destinations and tourist attractions, while others are struggling to diversify away from a one-industry town.
Unfortunately, the current structure of Federal assistance programs fails to fully recognize and address the complex set of challenges facing rural communities. In comparing Federal assistance for urban and rural communities, for example, one quickly discovers a troubling trend that explains the perpetual problems plaguing some rural communities.
While urban communities receive a substantial amount of Federal grant money for infrastructure development, the bulk of rural assistance is in the form of transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare and agriculture payments. Furthermore, urban counties and cities are more likely to receive economic development, housing and transportation funding directly from Federal agencies, while rural communities must compete on a national, state or regional basis.
Page 559 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) $4.8 billion Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is one of the largest Federal domestic assistance programs. Under the program, approximately 1,000 of the Nation's largest cities and counties divide over $3 billion each year in entitlement spending. This flexible funding allows them to meet important local needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 percent of funding is distributed to states for the small cities program. While an essential and effective program, the Nation's 14,000-plus rural communities must compete within their state for these CDBG funds.
Another example is the $32 billion annual Federal highway program, where urban areas directly receive millions of dollars for planning and infrastructure development activities while historically rural communities have had to work through state departments of transportation. With the bipartisan leadership of the Rural Caucus, however, Congress has made significant strides in recent years to correct this inequity.
Adding further to the discrepancy between urban and rural areas is the type of assistance available to rural communities. Many of the Federal economic development programs targeted to urban areas are in the form of grant assistance, while many rural programs, including USDA rural development programs, rely heavily on loans and loan guarantees instead of grants. Urban communities typically also have more access to capacity building and technical assistance dollars from HUD and other agencies, whereas most rural economic development planning is funded through the US Economic Development Administration's effective but small program.
Without a greater commitment by this committee and Congress to a stronger USDA rural development program, rural communities will continue to be at a marked disadvantage in trying to build and sustain viable local economies. This statement was recently endorsed by over 117 members of the Congressional Rural Caucus who pledged their support for a comprehensive rural development title as part of the farm bill rewrite.
Second, Mr. Chairman, USDA rural development programs need to remain focused on supporting the basic needs of local communities, such as water and wastewater systems, small business development finance, telecommunications and housing. All of these are essential building blocks for local economic development efforts, which eventually result in better paying jobs and an improved quality of life for local residents.
Page 560 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In December 2000, the NADO Research Foundation surveyed the 320 regional development organizations serving small metropolitan and rural America about their existing programs, organizational structure and regional needs. Nationally, the overwhelming response for the area of greatest need was for water and wastewater improvements, with transportation and workforce development rounding out the top three. The other most commonly mentioned needs involved funding for capacity building and access to advanced telecommunications.
Survey respondents were also asked to identify the USDA rural development programs they use most frequently to assist their rural communities. The top three programs were: water and wastewater program, rural business enterprise grants (RBEG) program and intermediary relending program (IRP). Other key programs included: community facilities, rural business opportunity grants (RBOG), solid waste management and rural housing programs. However, a common complaint from NADO members is that too much of USDA rural development funding is set-aside for specific communities, whether for the handful of rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZs/ECs) or specific areas such as the Delta and Tribal communities.
It is also important to note that the vast majority of rural local governments rely on regional development organizations to help them understand the complex menu of USDA programs, required matching requirements and, often times, burdensome paperwork. (Note: Over 33,000 of the Nation's 39,000 units of local government have populations below 3,000 and 11,500 employ no fulltime professional employees.)
When regional development organizations have been eligible to compete for, and receive, USDA rural development funding they have made major strides for their communities. Following are just a few examples of the impact regions are making with the RBOG and IRP programs:
In Alabama, the Alabama-Tombigbee Regional Council, headquartered in Camden, received a $28,000 RBOG grant to develop a strategic plan for their ten-county region. This project enabled local leaders to work together on a regional basis to identify their strengths and weaknesses. The end product will be a strategic plan that will serve as the local roadmap for future development.
Page 561 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Maine, the policy board members of the Northern Maine Development Commission identified business development and retention as a top priority during their comprehensive development strategy planning. In response, USDA awarded them with a small RBOG grant to establish a technical assistance support center for small businesses. By addressing this locally identified need, the technical assistance center is investing in the start-up, retention and expansion of local businesses, all resulting in the creation of new jobs in this distressed rural region.
Headquartered in North Fort Meyers, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council is leveraging a $95,000 RBOG grant to support a $250,000 regional strategic initiative for rural development. This multi-faceted program is helping the region assess the skills of the local workforce and identify areas of needed training; pinpoint new industries to complement the area and develop a marketing plan for attracting those new businesses; and establish a business development specialist in the local Small Business Development Center to assist local entrepreneurs.
In Pennsylvania, the loan programs of the North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission have helped create or retain over 3,000 jobs since 1984, including its highly successful IRP fund. The local company Gasbarre Products, for example, has used five loans over the past 12 years to expand from 55 employees to almost 300.
In South Dakota, the Northeast Council of Governments uses its IRP program to support local small businesses, including one loan in Eureka that helped establish a local convenience store, the only one within miles of the town.
NADO strongly believes that the RBOG and IRP programs are valuable tools for regional development organizations. However, the effectiveness of the RBOG program, which has grown from less than $1 million in FY1998 to $8 million in FY2001, has been restricted by congressional mandates and USDA practices. By earmarking almost 50 percent of RBOG funds for rural EZ/ECs and REAP zones, each state is typically left with between $50,000 and $200,000. Congress should either increase funding to ensure each USDA state rural development director has sufficient funds or eliminate setasides and make it a national discretionary competitive program.
Page 562 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The IRP program would also be more effective at reaching higher risk businesses if intermediaries were awarded grants instead of loans that need to be repaid to USDA. Otherwise, they will generally continue to make lower-risk loans that are less likely to go into default in order to make interest and principal payments over the life of the loan from the intermediary to USDA.
Another important comment on existing USDA rural development programs relates to the 1996 farm bill requirement that each USDA state rural development director develop a five-year strategic plan. Recognizing that Congress failed to provide additional funding for this activity, it is still disheartening that the vast majority of state directors failed to consult with rural local officials in crafting their development strategies. In rewriting the farm bill, we urge the committee to build on and strengthen this important process by calling for more local input and control.
Third, Mr. Chairman, local capacity building and technical assistance programs, such as the proposed Rural IMPAC program, are essential to the long-term stability and recovery of rural communities. Without professional staff to facilitate the development of local action plans and to understand the complexities of Federal assistance programs and rules, most rural communities will remain at a substantial disadvantage to their suburban and urban counterparts.
Fortunately, a relatively small Federal investment in local capacity building can be stretched a long way in rural America, particularly if implemented on a multi-county basis. Before describing the concept of the NADO-proposed Rural Investment Program for Area Capacity (Rural IMPAC) program, I want to highlight a sample of successful partnership programs between USDA rural development and regional development organizations.
In the mid–1990's, the USDA state rural development director in Iowa recognized the intense need for additional training and outreach on USDA programs at the local level. Instead of further extending the workload of USDA officials, the director awarded four regional councils of government $50,000 each to establish the ''Reaching Out to Rural America Pilot.''
Page 563 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As part of the pilot project, the councils of government provided educational seminars for local officials, business leaders and private nonprofits about the menu of rural development programs, explored alternatives for using programs such as IRP, and developed electronic means for facilitating local communications. They also met regularly with USDA officials to identify additional ways to help local organizations fund and complete needed projects.
USDA officials in four other states (Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia) have also signed agreements with individual regional development organizations to help with local outreach, training and grant applications. However, most do not receive funding for their efforts. In the early 1990's, for example, the state of Tennessee had 80 USDA offices that provided financial assistance to its 95 counties. By realigning the rural development offices along the boundaries of the nine regional development districts, USDA streamlined their overhead from 80 offices to nine, and its staff from 261 employees to 170. It also allowed the USDA rural development offices in Tennessee to work more effectively with the development districts to meet local community needs.
Study after study by Federal agencies and universities have concluded that additional funding for capacity building and technical assistance programs is one of the most pressing needs facing rural governments and communities. This stems from the fact that most rural local governments simply do not have the financial resources to hire professional economic development practitioners. And, presently there are few Federal programs designed specifically for their needs—unlike urban areas that receive millions of dollars in direct funding from HUD and Department of Transportation.
As a result, it is often difficult for the Nation's 14,000-plus rural communities to access both public and private sector funds designed to help them address basic infrastructure, housing, small business development finance, technology and transportation needs, all essential building blocks for creating a sustainable local economy. As a further consequence, most rural communities lack the professional expertise and financial resources needed to fund, develop and implement a comprehensive plan of action.
Page 564 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A sound and proven alternative for USDA rural development is to partner with the national network of 320 regional development organizations, who have almost daily contact with cities, counties, towns and other community organizations, in addition to decades of experience in combining and leveraging resources to meet local needs.
In implementing a program such as the proposed Rural Investment Program for Area Capacity (Rural IMPAC) program, Congress would be moving a step closer to helping local communities overcome the fractured system of Federal rural development programs. The program would place communities in a better position to address local issues on a regional basis, whether it relates to water treatment facilities, technology upgrades, closing of a major plant or cleanup after a natural disaster. Rural communities will also be more capable of taking a proactive approach to economic development, instead of the traditional reactionary model.
Whether a region is currently enjoying economic stability or coping with long-term challenges such as declines in traditional industries, they must plan for tomorrow, or risk falling far behind in the competitive global and high-tech marketplace. History has clearly demonstrated that communities who fail to adjust are often left behind. In the late 1800's it was those disconnected to railroads, in the 1960's it was the interstate highway system and today it is high-speed Internet connections.
Just developing advanced telecommunications systems alone, however, will not be enough for rural America. Industries and residents will still need basics assets such as quality infrastructure, schools, health facilities and seamless transportation networks. Following are brief examples of how NADO members are helping local communities prepare for the future.
In Oklahoma, the South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA) is using its Geographic Information System (GIS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) to develop capital improvement plans for local governments, a process that requires an inventory of all public assets. By cataloging and mapping every road, bridge, water line, public building and other assets, SWODA can develop visuals for local elected officials and business leaders who are developing infrastructure investment strategies. The data can also be used for zoning decisions, land use management, transportation planning and an almost endless list of other activities.
Page 565 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Examples of technical assistance provided by the 24 regional councils of government in Texas include financial management, planning and community development, joint data and computer services, cooperative purchasing, development of 911 systems, regional training programs for local officials and law enforcement officers, establishment of housing finance corporations, organization of legal services and credit unions for small cities, preparation of grant applications and local ordinance writing.
In eastern Kentucky, several regional development organizations are involved in a life-changing program that is providing area residents with clean and safe drinking water, many for the first time in their lives. Due to the natural landscape, it is often extremely costly for local residents to install water and waste treatment systems such as septic tanks. Historically thousands of Appalachia residents have used straight pipes to dispose of waste, usually directly into creeks, streams and rivers.
In response, the regional development organizations, under the leadership and support of Congressman Harold Rogers, have developed maps of the straight pipe locations and educational programs about their environmental impact. They have also created revolving loan funds for area residents to obtain low interest loans for septic tank purchases. This model program has helped improve the quality of drinking water in the region and protect the environment, while also restoring pride in the communities.
Faced with overcrowding jails, an overflowing landfill and growing debt, McMinn County officials in Tennessee learned firsthand the benefit of regular strategic planning sessions with the Southeast Tennessee Development District. Over a ten-year period, the county has worked with the district to address these pressing needs while also planning for the future. As a result, the county will be debt-free by 2002 and plans to implement a new pay-as-you-go policy.
In North Carolina, the Upper Coastal Plains Council of Government helped the rural town of Scotland Neck secure a USDA rural development grant to update and modernize the public library. By leveraging the USDA dollars with additional private sector and foundation funds, the town will add computers with high-speed Internet access to allow citizens and students to gain new opportunities and upgrade their skills.
Page 566 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Virginia, the New River Valley Planning District Commission continues to shepherd four counties through a decade-long economic recovery. The district helped create, and staffs, the area's first regional industrial park authority. The district is also providing ongoing support to the planning and design of a new technology magnet school, a partnership preparing high school students for careers in high technology fields.
By further strengthening regional development organizations through the Rural IMPAC program, Congress would be ensuring that the Nation's most rural communities could set goals, priorities and make more informed and effective decisions. We urge the committee the support the creation of the Rural IMPAC program
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to comment on USDA rural development programs, and Federal rural development policies in general. I also want to reiterate our three main points: (1) Rural communities need Federal development assistance programs and policies that allow them to identify, address and meet local needs. (2) USDA rural development programs should remain focused on supporting the basic needs of local communities, such as water and wastewater systems, small business development finance, telecommunications and housing; and (3) Local capacity building and technical assistance programs, such as the proposed Rural IMPAC program, are essential to the long-term stability and recovery of rural communities. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.
Statement of Joe Dudick
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hillard, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today representing America's state rural development councils (SRDCs) to provide you with some of our thoughts related to rural development programs that might be included in the next farm bill.
The first state rural development councils were established over a decade ago to help the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Government advance provisions of the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 which called for greater coordination in the formulation and administration of rural development policies and programs. Today, SRDCs operate in 40 states and, with the Washington-based National Rural Development Council, comprise the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP).
Page 567 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While SRDCs influence the formation of policies affecting rural areas, they do not, themselves, generally make policy. For the most part, SRDCs do not deliver or administer government programs in rural areas. Many other agencies and organizations—some of them represented at this table this afternoon—already do an excellent job in that regard.
What SRDCs do, on the state and national levels, is facilitate greater coordination among Federal agencies that have policies and programs with impacts on rural America. In addition, SRDCs promote greater collaboration among Federal agencies and state, local and tribal governments and the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. The goal of these collaborative efforts is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts to expand economic and social opportunities for rural communities and their residents. SRDCs provide feedback to government agencies on how programs are working and facilitate mitigation of administrative and regulatory barriers that confront local communities. The councils also seek to empower local leaders so that they—working with governmental and non-governmental entities at all levels—can do a better job of finding local solutions to local challenges.
I will say a few more words about SRDCs and the NRDP later in my testimony. In addition, I will provide you with information related to legislation we have proposed which would strengthen SRDCs and which will enhance efforts to better coordinate rural policies and programs in the United States. This proposal could be considered by this Subcommittee either as free-standing legislation or as a component of the next farm bill.
farm bill issues. I would like to briefly address a number of issues you might consider as you draft the rural development title of the next farm bill.
First, we believe Congress got it right when it laid out the basic philosophy governing rural development programs contained in the 1996 farm bill. The 1996 farm bill Conference Committee Report declared that Federal rural development efforts should be based on three fundamental concepts: (A) People at the state and local level are in the best position to know and to respond to the needs of local communities and governments. Constructive solutions are generated by local leaders who are most informed about problems and can appropriately tailor problem-solving initiatives. More focus must be placed on the effectiveness of program funding rather than on the process of obtaining Federal assistance; (B) ''One size fits all'' rural development programs are not likely to be as effective because different areas need different solutions to their problems; and (C) The top-down Federal-to-local approach to rural development erodes local incentives for leadership-building and community cohesion. Local communities must play a leading role in identifying local needs. Likewise, states are often bypassed, or only peripherally involved in Federal programs, and they, too, need to be involved. States should coordinate and combine Federal initiatives with their own rural development programs.
Page 568 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, we believe Congress must make a strong declaration that rural America is different from the rest of the country and requires special programs to meet its unique needs.
Third, we believe you must be careful in how you define ''rural.'' America has many different types of rural areas, so Federal policies and programs must be flexible to meet as many needs in as many areas as possible. In addition, this Subcommittee should be engaged with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Bureau of the Census as they periodically revise definitions for ''metropolitan areas'' and ''rural areas.'' Although OMB declares that the definitions they develop are not to be used for program administration, they frequently are used for that purpose and, often, to the detriment of rural America.
Fourth, we believe you must recognize that market-based solutions are not as likely to work in rural areas as in more urban areas. A good example of this is the problem can be seen in the effort to bring broad-band telecommunications services to rural areas. In many cases, rural areas do not possess the ''critical mass'' to allow true, competitive markets to exist. If we, as a society, are committed to the principle that rural Americans should enjoy the same opportunities and quality of life as their ''city cousins,'' Congress must be ready to provide the necessary subsidies. The loan and loan guarantee programs Congress has approved in the past are most welcome and extremely helpful. However, we must realize that, in many rural communities and for many reasons, there is still a great need for Federal grants to help provide essential services. You should carefully analyze this need and adjust funding levels for grants where appropriate.
Fifth, while we have not taken a position on the block-granting of Federal rural development funds to the states, we believe there are three key points you should keep in mind if you move in that direction: Point No. 1—Before approving any form of rural development block grants, you should be convinced that the states will be able to leverage the amount of money they receive up to the point where the effect on the ground will be the same as it would have been had the funds been administered by USDA; Point No. 2—Any rural development funds that are block-granted to the states must be included in a comprehensive state rural development plan which takes into account both Federal and state resources; and Point No. 3—You should ensure that funds that are block-granted to the states are used for the purposes for which the funds were appropriated by Congress.
Page 569 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sixth, agricultural policy is not the same thing as rural community development policy and vice versa. While seeking synergies where they can be found, we believe Congress—as part of the next farm bill—must set forth a clear national rural community development policy. Such a policy should not be a top-down prescription for micro-managing how rural communities address the challenges they face. Instead, it should delineate a series of goals that can be worked toward during the period covered by the next farm bill. Just a few of goals that suggest themselves include: that every rural American shall have access to a clean, safe domestic water supply; that every rural community shall have access to broadband telecommunications services; that every rural American shall have access to decent, affordable housing; that all rural Americans shall have access to entrepreneurial and business development programs equivalent to those available in urban areas; that all rural Americans shall have access to affordable health care services; that rural communities shall have access to essential transportation services and that cooperative businesses shall have access to Federal benefits commensurate with those available to private business corporations.
Seventh, notwithstanding point six above, we believe the next farm bill should do a better job of linking production agriculture and rural development strategies, even in rural communities where agriculture is no longer the economic engine it once was. The health of production agriculture has a direct impact on the health of ''Main Street.'' We must realize, however, that American agriculture has changed radically in the past decade or two. Agricultural and rural development policies that may have served us well in the past no longer seem to work. The change in production agriculture has been caused, in large part, by the effects of consolidation and globalization. While some people want to fight consolidation and globalization, the more positive approach is to look for new opportunities created by the new economy, and we believe there are many new opportunities. A key component will be business development programs administered by USDA and other Federal agencies. Cooperatives and community-owned businesses can provide great opportunities for utilizing agricultural commodities, for giving farmers a greater share of the American food dollar, for creating family-sustaining jobs in rural communities, and for keeping more of the wealth created by the growing and processing of agricultural commodities in the rural communities where they are produced. In this regard, we believe that the mission and funding of USDA cooperative programs should be expanded; that other Federal business and economic development programs should encourage more cooperative ventures; and that Cooperative Extension should be energized to identify new markets for farmers (particularly growing ethnic markets), new commodities farmers can produce, new products that can be produced from these commodities, and new strategies by which farmers and rural communities can retain more of the value of what they produce..
Page 570 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me mention that SRDCs have established a new national taskforce to look at the connection between agriculture and rural economic development, the NRDP Agriculture and Rural Economic Development Task Force. The NRDP Task Force, in collaboration with other divisions of USDA has launched a nationwide study of the role of the food and fiber system (FFS) in state economies and how the FFS is being incorporated into state economic development strategies. This study will provide, for the first time, an analysis of the role that the food and fiber system plays in the economic vitality of rural America at the state and local level. It will also document ''best practices'' for replication in all states.
Why is greater coordination of rural development efforts essential? Let me now move on to the main focus of my testimony: the need for greater coordination in the formulation and administration of policies and programs affecting rural areas. Why should we be concerned about this issue? There are several reasons:
First, there are a great number of individual Federal programs that benefit rural areas that are administered by a great number of agencies.
Second, too often, Federal agencies administer their programs in isolation without identifying how their efforts can leverage or be leveraged by resources from other Federal agencies.
Third, too often, Federal agencies do not reach out to state, local, and tribal governments that administer potentially complementary programs and do not engage the for-profit and not-for-profit private sectors, particularly foundations.
Fourth, the existence of so many programs and resources often results in duplication and inefficiency.
Fifth, too often Federal programs do not operate within the framework of holistic local and statewide rural development plans, thereby resulting in fragmented efforts. This is especially important because the individual components that come together to define a rural community do not exist in isolation; they are all interconnected. A decline in agricultural production or the closing of a manufacturing facility in a rural community has an impact that goes beyond those who lose their jobs; it creates ripples throughout the entire community.
Page 571 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And sixth, it is virtually impossible for rural leaders to know about all available programs from which they might benefit; it is difficult for rural leaders to take advantage of programs they know about because of limited capacity; and—because most programs operate in isolation—it is difficult for rural leaders to develop holistic strategies to address community-wide needs.
A 1994 General Accounting Office study identified the magnitude of the challenge facing rural leaders. The study identified almost 830 Federal programs that benefit rural areas, among which were:
35 economic development programs administered by five different agencies;
84 infrastructure programs administered by 13 different agencies.
109 agriculture/natural resources programs administered by six different agencies;
and 461 human resources programs administered by 17 different agencies.
Add to all these Federal programs countless additional programs administered by other levels of government and additional resources available from foundations and others. The point here is not that there are too many resources available to rural communities. Rural needs are great and growing. The point is that increased collaboration among agencies and increased coordination among programs is needed to generate the greatest benefit for rural America.
This is the challenge.
Past efforts to better coordinate rural development efforts. The recognition that we need to address the needs of rural communities in a more coordinated and holistic manner is not new.
President Theodore Roosevelt recognized this fact almost a century ago when he appointed the Country Life Commission in 1908. The Commission was charged with identifying strategies by which farm income could be increased and, equally important, strategies by which the quality of life in rural areas could be improved. The Commission took a comprehensive look at economic and social conditions in rural America; it recognized the interconnected nature of rural communities; and proposed holistic solutions to address the needs of farmers and their rural neighbors. To increase farmers' incomes, the Commission urged the expansion of farmer-owned cooperatives, better training for agricultural workers, and an increased role for Cooperative Extension. To increase the quality of life of rural Americans, they recommended improvements in transportation, health care, and education and urged that rural areas receive the benefits of electrification.
Page 572 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A quarter century later, Congress, at the behest of President Franklin Roosevelt, authorized the Nation's first large scale rural development programs to provide electric service and later telephone service, affordable housing, agricultural development, and a myriad of social programs through the many New Deal agencies.
Thirty years ago, Congress and the Executive Branch initiated a series of efforts intended to bring greater coordination to Federal rural community development efforts. Here is a brief overview of those efforts:
1972—The Rural Development Act of 1972 provided that the USDA Secretary should coordinate a nationwide rural development effort in cooperation with state and local governments.
1972—President Nixon called for consolidation of all rural community development programs in a new Federal Department of Community Development, declaring ''One of the most significant barriers to effective planning and coordination in rural areas has been the fragmentation of Federal efforts. Too many programs which should be closely related are operating as very separate entities. As a result, state and community leaders must often run a complex obstacle course in order to obtain development assistance. Frequently, there is poor coordination and wasteful duplication and in some cases the action of one Federal agency actually conflicts with that of another.
1973—President Nixon established the Assistant Secretaries Working Group for Rural Development. This effort was hampered by lack of authority for the USDA Secretary to require coordination of rural development efforts by non-USDA agencies.
1980—The Rural Development Policy act of 1980 directed the USDA Secretary to ''provide leadership within the executive branch for and ''assume responsibility for coordinating, a nationwide rural development program using the services of executive branch departments and agencies, including, but not limited to, the agencies, bureaus, offices, and services of the Department of Agriculture, in coordination with rural development programs of State and local governments.
Page 573 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1990—The Presidential Initiative on Rural Development called for the establishment of:
President's Council on Rural America to advise the Federal Government on improving Federal rural development policy.
State rural development councils to identify and assess local rural development needs and coordinate the delivery of Federal and state rural development programs to meet those needs.
Economic Policy Council Working Group on Rural Development to implement rural development initiatives developed by the President's Council on Rural America and approved by the administration.
1990—The 1990 farm bill authorized the establishment of State Rural Economic Development Review Panels to facilitate local and sub-state planning and to prioritize projects seeking Federal financial assistance. The Panels were to be composed of Federal, state, and local government officials and representatives of various statewide interest groups.
1992—The Report of the President's Council on Rural America recommended:
Appointment of a permanent Senior White House Advisor on rural development issues.
Continued strong support for the White House Policy Coordinating Group/Working Group on Rural Community Development and the appointment by each Federal agency of a ''rural affairs officer'' to serve as a member of the Working Group.
Appointment of a permanent President's Advisory Council on Rural America to be composed of individuals from the private sector.
Creation by state governors of a rural policy structure similar to that proposed for the Federal Government.
Page 574 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Continued support be given to further the creation and maintenance of State Rural Development Councils in all states as a means for promoting cooperation between the Federal Government and state levels of government, local governments, and the private sector.
The report stated: ''We believe the experiment in establishing State Rural Development Councils offers great potential for introducing a new era in the management of government. The State Rural Development Councils have responsibility for building effective partnerships and long-term strategies for achieving economic and social progress within their states. They are needed to remove barriers and to provide a forum in which effective action can occur between Federal and state governments, as well as local governments, educational institutions, Indian tribes, and the private sector.
1996—The 1996 farm bill:
Called for the development of state-by-state rural development strategic plans to take into account economic, human, and community development needs and to include all resources—non-Federal as well as Federal—which could be used to advance the goals of the plans. SRDCs were to be included among those involved in developing state plans and, in many cases, SRDCs actually facilitated the development of plans for USDA/RD State Directors.
Called for the USDA Secretary to establish a rural development interagency working group to—establish policy for, coordinate, make recommendations with respect to, and evaluate the performance of, all Federal rural development efforts.
Expected ''the National Rural Development Partnership to be the foundation upon which the Interagency Working Group is established. ''The Managers believe that the [National Rural Development] Partnership should continue its role in monitoring and reporting on policies and programs that work, as well as those that fail, to address the needs of rural America.
Page 575 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Identified several specific responsibilities for SRDCs: ''The State Councils are expected to play a role in the formulation of local needs assessments and in the development of state criteria for the distribution of RCAP funds. RDCs will continue to play the role of monitor and trouble-shooter for each state and work with the Partnership and Interagency Working Group to advance the goals of RCAP.
2000—Senators Larry Craig and Kent Conrad, along with 28 colleagues, introduced the National Rural Development Partnership Act. The bill, which will be introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives this year, would formally establish the National Rural Development Partnership and its two principal components, the state rural development councils and the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee (currently known as the National Rural Development Council).
The bill directs SRDCs to:
facilitate collaboration among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private and nonprofit sectors in the planning and implementation of programs and policies that target or have an impact on rural areas of the State;
enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of Federal and State programs in rural areas of the State;
gather and provide to the Coordinating Committee and other appropriate organizations information on the condition of rural areas in the State;
monitor and report on policies and programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of the rural areas of the State;
facilitate the formulation of local needs assessments for the rural areas of the State and participate in the development of criteria for the distribution of Federal funds to the rural areas of the State;
provide comments to the Coordinating Committee and other appropriate organizations on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation that affect or would affect the rural areas of the State;
Page 576 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
in conjunction with the Coordinating Committee, facilitate the development of strategies to reduce or eliminate conflicting or duplicative administrative or regulatory requirements of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments;
Among other things, the bill directs the Coordinating Committee to:
facilitate coordination among Federal programs and activities, a with State, local, tribal, and private programs and activities, affecting rural development;
enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of Federal programs in rural areas;
gather and provide to Federal authorities information and input for the development and implementation of Federal programs impacting rural economic and community development;
review and comment on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation that affect or would affect rural areas;
develop and facilitate strategies to reduce or eliminate administrative and regulatory impediments.
2001—The Congressional Rural Caucus asked President Bush to consider five proposals to enhance coordination of Federal rural community development efforts:
Appoint a Special Assistant to the President for Rural Affairs
Designate Rural Policy Leadership within each Federal Department.
Establish an Interdepartmental Working Group for Rural Affairs.
Convene a White House Conference on Rural America
Page 577 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increase Presidential Leadership on rural policy issues.
Where do we go from here? The benefits that can flow from increased coordination of rural development efforts are clear. Also clear is the fact that many initiatives to increase such coordination have come forth from Congress and several Presidents. The obvious question is ''why hasn't it happened to any great extent?'' There are many reasons why, but probably the greatest is that the political will has not existed to make it happen.
It is our hope that debate leading up to the next farm bill will create an overwhelming desire to finally put in place mechanisms which will allow this long sought coordination to occur. There are several things this Subcommittee can do to help this process:
First, to increase coordination with other Congressional Committees and Subcommittees which have jurisdiction over policies, agencies, and programs that affect rural areas;
Second, to study whether the responsibility for coordinating Federal rural policies and programs should be retained by the Department of Agriculture or raised to another level, either in the White House or in a newly established independent agency.
Third, to capture the best ideas of the past for better coordinating rural development efforts and, where appropriate, to include them in the farm bill. This would include the recommendations of the Congressional Rural Caucus, which we strongly support.
Fourth, to either pass the National Rural Development Partnership Act as a free-standing bill or to include it in the farm bill. We strongly believe the answer to the challenge of better coordinating rural development efforts will not just be found within the ''Washington Beltway.'' There needs to be an interactive connection between rural development policy makers in Washington and rural development planners and practitioners in the states and local communities. SRDCs have been providing that link for more than a decade. While they are not perfect, they deserve recognition, support, and adequate funding.
Page 578 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before I close, let me just say a word about the current financial condition of the NRDP and SRDCs. From their beginning, the SRDCs and NRDP have depended on voluntary contributions of discretionary funds from USDA and four other Federal agencies. They have never had a sufficient and predictable source of funding. This funding scheme has always been inadequate and finally broke down completely last year. Had it not been for enlightened action at the beginning of the Bush Administration, the SRDCs would have ceased to receive Federal funds at the end of March of this year. Many would have had to suspend operations. We are still working to put in place the funds that will be needed to carry the SRDCs through the end of this fiscal year. The recently approved Agricultural Appropriations Bill for Federal fiscal year 2002 contains no funding for the NRDP and SRDCs. We strongly believe that if Congress is seriously interested in seeing that policies and programs that affect rural America are better coordinated and that all agencies, organizations, foundations, and corporations that have resources to invest in rural America do so in a more holistic manner, Congress will have to provide adequate resources out into the future to allow this to occur. If the SRDCs are allowed to go out of business, the efforts of more than a decade will be lost and rural America will be the poorer for it. Mr. Chairman, we look to you and your colleagues to help us secure the needed funding to sustain one of the few in-place initiatives that is facilitating better coordination of rural development efforts in this country: the SRDCs and the NRDP.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say again that we all need to do a better job of coordinating rural development policies and programs in the United States. The next farm bill provides a perfect vehicle for moving us closer to this goal. However, this goal will only be achieved if there is a sustained will to see the job through. Mr. Chairman, America's state rural development councils stand ready to help you and your colleagues get the job done.
Statement of Regional Rural Development Centers
Page 579 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Regional Rural Development Centers (RRDC) were created in 1972 under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our primary purpose is to provide multi-state, multi-disciplinary research on rural development issues in coordination with our state university and land-grant college counterparts, which implement a variety of programs that help support rural communities. As part of the land-grant family, the RRDCs offer this testimony in support of that given by Dr. Sam Curl on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges'' Board on Agriculture before this subcommittee on the research title. The following testimony provides additional details about how research, education, and extension programs could be better linked to support rural development programs.
The RRDCs provide a regional perspective on rural development trends and issues to inform choices by rural and tribal communities across the country. They include the Southern Rural Development Center at Mississippi State University, the Northeast Rural Development Center at Pennsylvania State University, the North Central Rural Development Center at Iowa State University, and the Western Rural Development Center at Utah State University and encompass communities in all fifty states, U.S. Territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Housed at state universities and land-grant colleges, the RRDCs receive base funding through Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension. The majority of RRDC funding comes from local and state governments, as well as private organizations. Our funding works in coordination with Extension's implementation of formula funds toward rural development programs. We understand the extraordinary efforts that the House Agriculture Committee has undertaken to establish new funding opportunities for research, extension and education to address the critical issues facing farmers, ranchers and rural communities. We particularly want express our appreciation for the establishment and support of the Fund for Rural America (FRA). This new program focuses the research and extension talent of the land-grant and state university system on critical rural issues at the local level.
Page 580 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to maintaining base and formula funding mechanisms, we support expanding the competitive grants mechanism through the continuation of the Fund for Rural America, an expanded Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, or a modification of the section 406 account.
The challenges facing rural and tribal communities are complex. There is growing consensus among the Congressional Rural Caucus and constituent groups of the dire need to develop place-based policies that map the unique assets of rural communities, stimulate local innovation, and re-establish the symbiotic relationship among rural, suburban, and urban America. In pursuing this course, we believe that science and education will be the underpinnings of responsive, dynamic government policy. RRDCs impart objective, science-based information and education to local citizens, public and private sector organizations and local groups. In so doing, they strengthen the ability of these entities to make sound decisions that promote the long-term vitality of their communities.
The RRDCs and Cooperative State Research and Extension Services offer a unique model for Federal, state, and local partnerships in rural development. Key to our success is engaging local government and private sector partners in shaping rural development research and outreach activities; tapping the talents of multi-disciplinary land-grant university teams to capture the unique social, economic, and environmental aspects of rural development research; and facilitating the transfer of important rural development research to rural people and communities across state lines via the outreach education activities of the land-grant system.
Based on our 25 years of experience in rural America and in coordination with the state universities and land-grant colleges, we wish to offer the following input to the subcommittee as it considers the Rural Development Title of the 2002 farm bill.
RRDCs and Cooperative State Research and Extension Services can add value to existing and proposed rural development programs. Possible activities include:
Page 581 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Participating in economic development and stability:
Designing and implementing training programs in the utilization of tax credits for rural residents. Tax credits may be an underutilized tool, and there may be a unique opportunity with the new tax reduction legislation.
Educating community residents about financial management to improve financial stability.
Expanding distance education to help remote communities, including reservation communities, develop strategies and programs to meet their telecommunications needs. Extension can expand its efforts to assist small businesses access ''e-commerce'' opportunities and global markets.
Researching economic opportunities presented by natural resource and agriculture based development such as bioenergy and biomaterials, tourism and amenities promotion and marketing and educating rural and tribal communities about their use. Researching the new business structures of growers who focus on value added agriculture and educating the public about means for implementation.
Coordinating and developing non-degree job training programs with economic development activities to meet the needs of new industries making locational choices about rural America.
Participating in community vitality:
Expanding youth participation in technology training and tribal community residents.
Enhancing access to preventive health care via Extension programs.
Building partnerships among key farm and non-farm stakeholders in rural communities that are dedicated to working together in promoting sustainable agricultural and community development strategies.
Page 582 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Stimulating civic entrepreneurship:
Providing leadership development and training programs specific to the administration of Federal block grants to rural and tribal communities.
Improving and strengthening collaboration between rural, suburban, and urban areas to deal with complex land use issues. Capturing the uses of new cyber-government technologies that can improve coordination among jurisdictions.
Coordinating Federal, state, and local rural development programs:
Developing new models for state universities and land-grant colleges and Federal laboratories to work together with the private sector, to insure that research results reach commercial development. Many states have developed new and exciting structures that provide for more effective research and development investments and collaboration.
Researching and evaluating the effectiveness of rural and tribal community development strategies, and providing Federal and state policy makers with better information regarding the impacts of policies on rural communities and their residents.
Interfacing with major Federal agencies that are involved in rural development. For example, working in collaboration with the Office of Rural Health Policy to strengthen decisions that address the long-term health planning needs of rural communities. Also, working in collaboration with the Department of Labor to provide local Workforce Investment Boards with research on the changing nature of local labor markets and strategies that might best position these boards to capture higher quality jobs.
Statement of Blaine Stockton
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to testify today for the Rural Development Mission Area of USDA. My name is Blaine Stockton, Acting Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service. I am accompanied by William F. Hagy III, Acting Administrator of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, James C. Alsop, Acting Administrator of the Rural Housing Service, and Norman Reid, Acting Director of the Office of Community Development.
Page 583 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural Development assists rural individuals, communities, and businesses to obtain the financial and technical assistance needed to address their diverse and unique needs. The different USDA programs work together with local leaders and local programs to invest in the rural citizens and communities that have been the backbone of the United States' economy for most of this Nation's history.
The Rural Development programs serve all communities in rural America. Native American tribal communities, areas like the Delta and the Colonias with high percentages of minorities, are participants in Rural Development Programs. Attached are detailed statistics to provide information on minority participation. Construction of day care facilities, senior citizen centers, and housing is to the benefit of both single women with children and elderly women with fixed incomes. The infrastructure programs are required to cover everyone in a service area, assisting everyone on an equal basis.
The Rural Development Mission area was established in 1994 by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act. The mission area consists of three agencies, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), the Rural Housing Service (RHS), and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). These agencies are responsible for delivering programs authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, the Farm Security Act of 1985, the Rural Electrification Administration Act of 1936, the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, the Housing Act of 1949, and the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990. The mission area also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Program, related community development activities and helps support the National Rural Development Partnership, a nationwide network of rural development leaders and officials. This listing of responsibilities is suggestive of the remarkably wide variety of responsibilities in Rural Development's purview, to improve the quality of life for rural Americans.
Page 584 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Financial and technical assistance may come solely from Rural Development or be combined with assistance from one of the numerous public and private organizations involved in the development of rural communities. The leveraging of local, state and private sector financing is different from program to program. Leveraging will range from $3 of private sector financing for every dollar loaned in the Rural Electric Program to a ratio of nearly 14 to1 in the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Community grant programs. Based on recent experiences, Rural Development expects that every dollar of Rural Business Enterprise Grant funding will be leveraged with $2.40 of funding from other sources, while each dollar of Intermediary Relending Program funds will be leveraged with $3.76 from other sources.
Rural Development agencies deliver over 40 different loan, loan guarantee, and grant programs in the areas of business development, cooperative development, housing, community facilities, community empowerment, water supply, waste disposal, electric power, and telecommunications, including distance learning and telemedicine. Rural Development staff, located in field offices and Washington, DC, provide technical assistance to rural families and community leaders to enhance community capacity for development and to ensure success of projects Rural Development has financed. In addition to their grant and loan-making responsibilities, Rural Development staff are also responsible for the servicing and collection of a loan portfolio that exceeds $80 billion.
Rural Development Programs provide financial and technical assistance to distressed African-American, Appalachian, Hispanic American, Native American and other rural communities experiencing severe poverty and other long-term economic and social problems. These programs give low-income and minority citizens and opportunity to define and shape their own futures. These designations provide a number of leadership opportunities for low income, minority and women citizens.
Rural Development's impressive aggregate statistics display one dimension of the successes of the program. However, statistics do not reveal the human side of these successes. When a family has clean water for the first time, moves into their first home, or sees success in a start-up business that contributes to not only that family, but also the entire community; we are able to reap the full dividends of this tremendous investment.
Page 585 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural Housing Service
The commitment to improve housing conditions in rural areas, and in particular improve homeownership opportunities, makes an investment in human dignity that gives us a stronger community and Nation. RHS programs include Community Facilities, Direct and Guaranteed Loans and Grants, Home Ownership Direct and Guaranteed Loans, Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants, Housing Preservation Grants, Congregate Housing and Group Home Loans for senior citizens and disabled individuals, Rural Rental Housing Loans, Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants, and Multi-Family Direct and Guaranteed Loans.
The Community Facilities Program finances rural health facilities, childcare facilities, fire and safety facilities, jails, education facilities, and almost any other type of essential community facility needed in rural America. The single family direct and guaranteed loans enable families who are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to purchase a home of their own. Home improvement and repair loans and grants go to help current homeowners, mostly low income and many elderly, solve problems that would often make the home unlivable without the repairs. Next year's projected housing construction activity from RHS funding will stimulate almost 36,000 jobs in rural areas. Multi-family Housing and Farm Labor Housing continues to help address local housing shortages. These programs, along with rental assistance funding, support construction of new units and rehabilitation of existing units, many of which are occupied by female heads of households, generally elderly females or single mothers, with annual incomes averaging under $8,000. When a small rural community tries to recruit new businesses, the availability and the affordability of decent housing is a determining factor.
Rural Business-Cooperative Services
One key to creating economic opportunity in rural areas is the development of new business and employment opportunities. But, local lending institutions frequently do not have the capacity or capital needed to sustain local businesses and generate new growth in rural areas. Rural Business-Cooperative Services (RBS) programs, particularly the Business and Industry (B&I) loan guarantee program, were enacted to supplement the efforts of local lending institutions in providing the capital.
Page 586 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Cooperative Services program offers a wide range of assistance to rural residents interested in forming new cooperatives or to existing cooperatives facing specific problems. Rural cooperatives have assisted in marketing, purchasing, or adding value to everything from supplies, raw agriculture commodities, or needed services. The cooperative development specialists can help with initial feasibility studies, creation of a business plan, or provide technical assistance to help a cooperative develop a strategic marketing plan to cope with new competitive forces. Business and Industry loan guarantees can be used to finance capital stock purchases to create a cooperative. This serves as one more tool to give farmers and ranchers a piece of the value-added pie to improve farm income.
The programs of the Rural Business Service help close the gap in opportunity for rural areas in which private sector capital is not readily available, helping to bring them closer to sharing in the benefits of the Nation's economic growth. Rural Business Service loans and grants are weighted to the number of jobs created or preserved. Rural Development anticipates over 71,600 jobs will be saved or developed through providing assistance to 2,700 businesses.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides financing for electric, telecommunications, and water and waste disposal services that are essential for economic development in rural areas. RUS has an ongoing partnership with approximately 800 rural electric borrowers, 800 rural telecommunications providers, and some 7,200 small communities, rural water, and waste disposal systems.
America's demand for reliable electric power has placed strains on systems all across the nation. RUS has seen the demand for distribution expansion, increased transmission facilities, and the need for peaking generation management tools explode over the past four to five years. In addition, the RUS Electric Program is working more with renewable sources for electric power including wind, photovoltaic, and biomass.
Page 587 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Electric program benefits consumers through new construction, systems improvements, and upgrading of rural electric systems. This next year, approximately 60,000 jobs will be created as a result of facilities constructed with Electric program investments in rural infrastructure.
Building and maintaining modern telecommunications infrastructure is critical to rural economic development. Nowhere does the revolution in information technology offer more promise and face more challenge than rural America. Since the Rural Electrification Loan Restructuring Act was drafted in this subcommittee and passed by Congress, all RUS financed telecommunications infrastructure must be capable of supporting data transmission at a minimum rate of one megabit-per second. The RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program provides increased educational and health care opportunities for rural citizens. In Telecommunications, it is projected that some 16,000 jobs will be generated as a result of facilities constructed with Telecommunications program funds.
There is no more basic human need than clean, safe, drinking water. Availability of safe clean water and the ability to remove waste in a safe and ecologically sound manner has never been more challenging or more expensive. RUS Water and Environmental Programs serve communities of 10,000 population or fewer and rural areas. Over 42,000 jobs are projected next year, generated as a result of facilities constructed with water and waste disposal program funds, as rural water and rural waste systems are developed or expanded in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and Federal and State environmental standards. There is a high demand for the Water and Waste Disposal loans and grants.
For this fiscal year, Congress provided a pilot program with $100 million in loan funds and $2 million in grants for broadband service where it does not exist in communities of up to 20,000 population. The Program has had over $300 million in applications. Authorizing legislation, for a loan and grant program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet service in rural areas is under development at USDA as provided for in 2002 budget request. This will improve access to high speed; high capacity data transmission to under-served rural areas.
Page 588 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was established in 1972 to provide a supplemental source of credit to help establish rural telephone companies. The RUS Telecommunications Program provides staffing for the RTB. The RTB Board is comprised of five presidential appointees from USDA, two presidential appointees to represent the public, three board members representing cooperative stockholders and three members representing commercial stockholders. This has proved to be remarkably successful, and efforts have been underway to privatize the bank. In 1996, the RTB began repurchasing Class A stock from the Federal Government; thereby beginning the process of transformation from a federally funded organization to a fully privatized banking institution.
Office of Community Development
The Office of Community Development (OCD) administers Rural Development's Community Empowerment Programs. In addition to specific technical assistance provided to rural communities by community development specialists nationwide, OCD implements ongoing programs that help distressed rural communities develop the capacity to plan, finance and implement long-term strategic development plans. OCD has an ongoing partnership with 8 rural Empowerment Zones (EZ), 49 Enterprise Communities (EC), 120 Champion Communities (CC), 5 Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Zones, and a number of high-impact targeted regional initiatives.
Over the past 12 months, in the 57 rural EZ/ECs, close to 7000 jobs were created or saved, some 600 new houses were built and over 1200 rehabilitated, 12,500 participants in youth programs and 20,300 participants in education programs were served, nearly 450 business loans were made, and 95 new businesses were started or relocated into those areas. Since the program's inception, over 20,000 jobs have been created or saved.
Rural Development programs work in concert. Without housing, there is no need for utilities. Without jobs, there are no people to live in the houses. Without leadership in these rural communities, no program, Federal or state will serve the needs. Leadership, development, investment, and training enable communities to grow and prosper.
Page 589 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The programs outlined for you today are tools for rural communities to use to meet the needs and challenges they face in this global, digital economy. Rural America is not isolated from economic downturns in Asia or conflicts in Eastern Europe. Providing the tools to take advantage of the benefits of expanded markets and new opportunities is not easy. Delivering these programs to the remote, isolated, and low-income areas of rural America requires administrative expenses sufficient to the task.
Rural Development's loan portfolio exceeds $80 billion and funding is a joint venture requiring careful underwriting and business-like servicing. The USDA employees have as high a level of professional competence as you will find in or out of government service. The Mission Area looks forward to working with you in the future to serve rural America.
Rural Development appreciates the support and innovation this subcommittee has provided rural communities and citizens over the years.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my formal statement. The Acting Administrators and I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
Statement of Glenn English
Chairman Lucas, members of the subcommittee, for the record, I am Glenn English, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the national association of 900 not-for-profit, consumer-owned electric utilities that provide central station electric service to more than 34 million consumers, most of whom live in the Nation's rural areas.
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee for convening this hearing on rural development programs. These programs are increasingly important to rural areas that have been challenged by declining populations and economies shattered by low agricultural commodity prices. At the same time, the new global economy is providing opportunities for growth and diversification, and steadily shrinking the distance between people in rural and urban areas. Rural communities want and deserve the same opportunities for growth that their urban counterparts enjoy.
Page 590 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we have learned in our rural communities and electric cooperative programs is that local leadership is crucial to development activities. The best rural economic development programs are those that allow local leaders to determine their communities' strengths and future direction. Programs must provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the variability in regions, infrastructure, natural and human resources.
From my 30 years experience in working with rural economic development, I have found that the biggest payoffs come when rural economic development projects are oriented to building infrastructure and a community's economic base. We also need to look at the total portfolio of Federal economic development programs to determine how the programs together address national rural economic needs. Each program will not address every need. For example, a carbon sequestration program may be more valuable to areas with a lot of farmland. A water and sewer program may be more valuable to a small community in the mountains. Together the portfolio should address the entire suite of development needs.
What is the Federal role in rural development? How can more rural communities take advantage of new opportunities? How can rural development programs be designed to better assist rural leaders in achieving their vision of the future?
Mr. Chairman, today I will provide a perspective from the trenches. First, I will discuss the issue of capital for development in rural areas. I will propose a Federal/private partnership program that would encourage private financial investments in rural communities. I will also discuss USDA's Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program and how it is being used today to contribute to rural economic growth. Both programs are locally driven and help move much-needed investment capital into rural communities.
Then I will discuss three new areas of opportunity for rural communities: (1) Broadband service and the opportunities it provides for the future; (2) Biobased products and the potential for a biobased economy; and (3) Carbon sequestration and green programs for the farm bill and their potential contributions to the nation.
Page 591 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural communities are an important part of America's cultural heritage, and a vital part of America today. With the thoughtful action of this Committee, rural areas can share in our Nation's prosperity and continue to play a vital role in America for years to come.
INVESTMENT CAPITAL
Affordable Equity Capital for Rural Business and Cooperative Ventures
We all recognize rural America has not shared fairly in the prosperity of the rest of the country. There is a real need to more broadly diversify our rural economies. One missing crucial element in the ability to diversify and expand is the necessary equity capital for rural business development. Legislation is needed to encourage private investment in value-added agricultural enterprises, producer-owned cooperatives, and other projects that existing venture capital funds do not accommodate.
Studies conducted over the past several years indicate a dramatic shortage of available risk capital for those in rural areas wanting to start new businesses or expand existing ones. Further, when venture capital is available, it comes with an extremely high price tag. Those few venture capitalists willing to take a risk on providing equity for rural-based projects demand a return on investment of 35 to 50-percent, or even more.
The effect of such returns on investment is to severely diminish the economic benefits for both the venture project originators and the rural community in which it is located. If rural communities are to share in the overall national prosperity, then venture capital must be more readily available and affordable for rural business and cooperative growth.
Over the past 18 months, NRECA has worked to develop a broad coalition of financial institutions and rural business interests in an effort to devise a Federal/private partnership program to significantly increase availability and affordability of venture capital for rural business and cooperative projects. This group includes AgriBank, American Bankers Association, CoBank, National Cooperative Bank, National Cooperative Business Association, Farm Credit Council, Independent Community Bankers of America, Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC).
Page 592 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have provided for the subcommittee members a copy of legislative language and explanatory materials that outline the general provisions agreed upon and supported by the working group. The bill language was actually introduced late last year on the Senate side, but saw no action in the closing days of the 106th Congress.
To summarize for the subcommittee the basic elements of the legislation and the points of common agreement among the coalition members, I would make the following points and then try to answer any specific questions.
To effectively utilize scarce Federal funds, any new approach must create a dynamic partnership with private-sector institutions capable of and willing to provide significant amounts of risk capital for the program;
Any new approach—although requiring significant Federal start-up funding—should not be a ''government program,'' but must allow for sound investment and business decisions to be reached in the context of a private-sector setting through a new national funding organization;
Legislation supported by the coalition would essentially require that only those with money at risk (including the Federal Government) would be eligible to serve as directors of the new funding organization in order to make sound investment decisions in rural economic development projects; and
Any new approach must involve local input and support on the front-end, and our legislative language requires that a local project must have a local ''sponsoring entity'' before applying to the national funding organization for the needed equity funding.
Mr. Chairman, our concept would require a one-time Federal contribution of $150.0 million or more, in a one-to-one match with funding from private not-for-profit or commercial lending institutions. The funds would be administered by a new private funding corporation with a board comprised of those who have put money up for the project—private and Federal investors would both have a representative voice in determining equity investment decisions. A local project would require first the support and a small financial commitment from a local sponsoring entity, which can include a local development agency, a local bank or savings and loan, a local electric or producer cooperative, or even a local Chamber of Commerce. The bottom line is that everyone at the table will have some financial risk.
Page 593 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program
Electric cooperatives meet community needs other than electrification through their economic and community development activities. These efforts create jobs and opportunity in the community and are enabled through USDA's Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (REDLAG). Electric cooperatives have a strong interest in the health of their communities. Economic development results in new power sales for cooperatives, which, through careful power supply planning, can stabilize or even reduce rates to consumers. Thus, cooperatives' supporting successful economic development projects helps to ensure the economic futures of their communities, their co-op and their consumers.
Enacted in 1987, REDLAG created a pool of funds for rural development through encouraging advance loan payments by rural electric and telephone cooperatives financed by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). These monies are available to RUS utilities as loans or grants for job creation and sustainable economic development projects.
Over the lifetime of the program, REDLAG has provided over $140 million in loans and over $66 million in grants to rural communities. These loans and grants have leveraged nearly $1.2 billion in non-Federal capital for 851 projects. Over 25,000 jobs have been created. This year alone, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) will approve $15 million in loans and $3 million in grants.
Mr. Chairman, the REDLAG program has brought significant economic opportunities to rural America, and as we are both well aware, rural America is in severe need of such opportunities. In rural Oklahoma, specifically in Caddo County, Caddo Electric Cooperative has had four zero-interest economic development loans which have been approved for a total of $761,000 in investment and with the effect of creating 55–65 jobs. As Bob Thomasson, CEO of Caddo Electric Cooperative in Binger, Oklahoma put it, ''The REDLAG program is an outstanding tool for our Cooperative to use for economic development opportunities in our service area. There has been little or no growth in our area, because most young people are moving to metropolitan areas. But with the REDLAG program, we have been able to assist local people in establishing businesses that create jobs. That's a direct benefit to our service area, which is extremely rural in nature.'' Since Caddo Electric started applying for loans and grants through the REDLAG program, four loans have been approved. These resulted in the creation of 55 new jobs and more than 850 kW of new load for the Cooperative. Seven more loans are pending which will create an additional 126 new jobs, and will provide 1100 kW in load growth for the Caddo electric distribution system.
Page 594 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mike Treadwell, CEO of Rural Electric Cooperative in Lindsay, Oklahoma, very near the 6th District of Oklahoma said, ''In 1990 a feasibility study and business plan was conducted by Oklahoma State University for a three-county waste management program. This project was in conjunction with the respective County Commissioners to assist in resolving the solid waste problem in rural areas. The grant obtained through the REDLAG program was in the amount of $100,000 and had the potential to create up to 25 new jobs in the area. In 1991, a REDLAG loan for $100,000 was made to the Lindsay Municipal Hospital during a time of financial woes. The purpose of the zero-interest loan was to help save the hospital and retain local jobs. The loan helped keep the hospital open for approximately five years. (It has since closed.) This loan has been repaid in its entirety.'' I would add that although the hospital eventually closed, those five years that it remained opened were extremely important to those individuals in the area. I would also observe, Mr. Chairman, that the history with Lindsay Municipal Hospital illustrates two points that we have already made: one is that no single, defined solution will work in every situation so that flexibility to address rural development opportunities and problems is necessary; the second is to emphasize the need for risk-sharing with intelligent local participation.
While the REDLAG program has worked well over the last decade, the funds available for loans and grants have declined over the last six years. I believe certain changes would reverse this trend and make REDLAG even more successful in the future. I look forward to working with the Chairman and other Members of the Agriculture Committee to adapt REDLAG to current economic realities and reinvigorate the program.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Broadband
As leaders in rural America, electric cooperatives are keenly interested in the challenge of bringing broadband service to rural America. Like Members of this Committee we believe that rural consumers should have the same access to high-speed connections to external markets, employment, and educational opportunities and medical centers as their urban counterparts. However, a joint report by the U.S. Agriculture and Commerce Departments last year concluded ''rural areas are currently lagging far behind in broadband availability.'' While a number of rural communities have access to high-speed internet service, the report also concluded that the primary reason for the slower deployment rate is simply economic. Clearly, market forces may leave behind a significant number of rural Americans simply because of geography.
Page 595 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is currently in the midst of an extremely successful $100 million pilot program designed to increase broadband access to rural America. This technology neutral program has been very popular applications amounting to more than $350 million have been submitted. We strongly believe the RUS pilot program should be authorized and become a permanent part of RUS's telecommunications function. An expanded RUS broadband loan and grant program will help leverage private sector investment to ensure that advanced telecommunications services are swiftly deployed in rural America.
While much of the debate in this Congress has been over the deployment of broadband via fiber optic cable, rural electric and telephone cooperatives are at the forefront of providing satellite-delivered internet to rural areas through the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative. While there is no one technology that will totally bridge the digital divide, satellite-delivered broadband has an advantage over wired options in that geographic location has no effect on the cost of providing the service. Americans living in remote and rural areas can have Internet access at speeds and prices comparable to those of their urban and suburban counterpoints. We look forward to working with the Chairman and other Members of the Agriculture Committee to craft a proposal that will meet the challenge of bringing broadband to all Americans.
Biomass and a Biobased Economy
America has been blessed with rich agricultural lands, hardworking and innovative farmers who have cultivated that resource, and an abundant production of agricultural commodities. Unfortunately, this has not translated into wealth for rural America. High world crop production and low world market prices have undercut farm income. Last year, direct government assistance to farmers surpassed $22 billion. This level of support is unsustainable over the long-term. With abundant world food production projected to continue, it is time to explore new uses and new market opportunities for commodities.
Page 596 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Biobased products and bioenergy are opportunities whose time has come. Biobased products and bioenergy are chemicals, materials, and fuels made from biomass resources such as agricultural products and their residues, or woody material. New biomass technologies can provide new uses and markets for farm products, enhance U.S. energy security, improve air and water quality, and reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific breakthroughs in the plant sciences will soon make renewable biobased products and bioenergy competitive substitutes for nonrenewable, carbon-based products such as fossil fuels, industrial chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. Last year the National Academy of Sciences reported, ''Biological sciences are likely to make the same impact on the formation of new industries in the next century as the physical and chemical sciences have had on industrial development throughout the century now coming to a close.''
I co-chair the Department of Energy's Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, created under the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. The Committee's focus is technical, advising the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy on research needs in bioproducts, biofuels, and biopower and strategies to accelerate product development and commercialization.
In addition to more research, Federal policies will also influence the adoption and use of biobased products and bioenergy. The Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) Bioenergy Program provides incentive payments to smaller producers who increase their production capacity of eligible biofuels. The 2-year program has helped 54 producers increase their possible production by an additional 246 million gallons of bioethanol and 36 million gallons of biodiesel. Federal purchase programs that increase Federal use of biofuels or encourage the procurement of biobased products as alternatives to nonrenewable products can demonstrate the performance of these products, while also stimulating additional research and production. Programs that make capital investment available to manage the risk of these new technologies may also be necessary.
Page 597 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural communities are positioned through their proximity to the plant-based feedstocks to attract the new processing and manufacturing industries of these products. This is an opportunity to create new uses for agricultural products and new businesses for rural communities. This Committee can help by including a biomass title in the new farm bill. This title could extend the CCC's Bioenergy Program another 5 years and expand it to include additional biobased products. The farm bill could also mandate an increase in the use of biofuels by the Federal fleet and establish a bioproduct preference procurement program modeled after the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Section 6002.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you to make biobased industrial products cost-competitive and make a biobased economy a reality.
Carbon Sequestration
Another area generating a great deal of attention is carbon sequestration. Growing concern about the potential impacts of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations has generated interest in cost-effective ways to reduce them. Carbon sequestration is about the most inexpensive way there is to offset greenhouse gas emissions.
Trees, crops and other plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air and fix it in their leaves and wood and roots. Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, can be stored for a long time in our soils and forests. It's relatively cheap and in the U.S. we have the potential to offset between 10 and 20 percent of our total annual greenhouse gas emissions simply through better management of our soils and forests.
Agricultural practices that increase carbon in the soil-crop residue management, conservation tillage, nutrient management, and other technologies have additional environmental benefits. Good soil management can increase the productivity of the soil through better fertility and water retention, decrease soil erosion, and improve water and air quality. Clearly this can be a win-win strategy.
Page 598 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Assisting farmers in the transition to new, more sustainable ways of farming that enhance the environment is another idea whose time has come. The new farm bill should extend the USDA's conservation programs, or enable the development of carbon as a new market commodity through research and pilot programs. Not only will this provide support to rural economies, but it will also provide environmental security to the global community.
Rural Electric Cooperatives are Important Players in Rural Economic Development
The health and vitality of rural communities is of great concern to me personally, and of great concern to the rural electric cooperatives that serve this population. Cooperatives currently have $64 million outstanding in loans or other monies for economic development. In addition, a total of 70 operate revolving loan funds totaling over $26 million. Electric cooperatives are an excellent delivery mechanism for getting community and economic development funding to rural areas: cooperatives not only have their own financial resources that they contribute, but co-op managers and staff are often respected community leaders, communication conduits, and catalysts for local initiatives. Electric co-ops are successful, they are local, they are permanent, they are not-for profit, and their coverage of the country's rural areas is extremely broad.
Through encouraging capital investment in our rural communities and taking advantage of new opportunities, rural communities can remain a vital part of the American economy. Rural communities are worth our investment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Statement of John Zippert
For over three decades, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund has worked diligently to help minority farmers remain on the land and to assist the hundreds of poor and people of color communities we serve throughout the southeast to build houses, cooperatives and credit unions. In 1978, the Federation was among the founding members of the Rural Coalition. Our Coalition has for over two decades serve to build alliances and enhance the efforts of the communities the Federation serves, and many others like it in every region of this nation.
Page 599 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The founding principles and goals of the Rural Coalition, below, are an appropriate starting point for this testimony on rural development. The communities of the rural United States now lag farther behind in sharing the benefits of the economic vitality of the past decade. The digital divide is only one of the growing chasms that separates poor and people of color communities from the rest of our society. In addition to the long injustices and neglect in African American communities in the south, Federal Government support has also failed to reach the new Latino and Asian-American communities who seek access to the land throughout this nation. Today, the poorest living conditions on this continent are found on Indian lands and in migrant worker colonias at the borders. The programs and services of the Rural Development mission area in the US Department of Agriculture still fail to reach the vast majority of the communities we and our members and partners jointly serve.
This is not how it should be. The recommendations we share with you today emerge from the goals and principles which govern the Rural Coalition and those that form our joint Campaign for a Just Food and Farm Policy. All members of our Coalition believe that:
Justice and equal opportunity are the right of all people regardless of race, sex, or place of residence.
All rural people are entitled to the goods and services essential to a decent quality of life, including education, health and employment services, housing, and basic community facilities. They are also entitled to democratic community institutions dedicated to serving their interests.
The long term viability of rural communities rests on effective control and use of resources by the people living in rural areas, including family farmers, local business people and working people in all walks of life.
Community-based organizations are instrumental in the development of rural communities. Public policy should encourage their growth and strength.
Page 600 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Federal Government has responsibility to insure the rights of all citizens and to help secure the fulfillment of these rights.
Consistent with these goals and the task before us today, I would like to expand upon the following three propositions in the remainder of my statement.
Community based organizations are essential and experienced partners in any effective rural development strategy. Public policy seeking equitable rural development should strengthen the capacity of these organizations and include them as real partners at every level of development.
Rural Development Programs and Services must be a fundamental part of any cohesive national farm and food policy, and must be designed in such a way and funded at such as level as to assure basic needs of all rural people are met equitably and that no community is left behind.
.A viable and equitable agriculture policy is fundamental to any rural development strategy. Recent farm bills have redirected resources to larger farmers. However, the Small and Minority Farm Sector has held on through many adversities and appears to be resilient and with appropriate investment, ripe for expansion. The Federal Government should invest in and not undercut their efforts. Moreover, our farm policy should be constructed in such a way as to assure the benefits of agriculture are accrued within, rather than extracted from, rural communities, their land and resource base, and their future viability
SUPPORTING THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Community based organizations are essential and experienced partners in any effective rural development strategy. Public policy seeking equitable rural development should strengthen the capacity of these organizations and include them as real partners at every level of development.
For the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, or the dozens of community based members of the Rural Coalition, the need for support to build capacity is our most fundamental, every day need. For decades, our members have struggled through every challenge imaginable to keep our doors open and continue to serve the members of our community, to whom we are accountable, and who have no place else to go. Many staff members of our organizations have struggled every day for years with far too much work to do, and no hope of a secure income, retirement or often even health insurance. We keep on working because those we serve have strong faith in us and hope to secure a better future for their families.
Page 601 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Federal Government was at one time a critical partner in rural development, one that led advances in our communities and brought electrification, water, transportation and other basic services to some of the most isolated areas. For decades, the foundation community was another critical partner, with many years of investment in eradicating hunger and poverty in rural areas.
Over the past two decades, these resources have steadily eroded. Most of the major foundation -supported anti hunger and rural programs have been replaced by other priorities. Changes in telecommunications law, health, transportation, education and energy policy have left our communities far behind and without hope of equity in services. USDA programs have become smaller and more cumbersome, and for the most part no longer accessible to the community based groups who spurred their development for many years.
We struggle now to do everything with far less, and watch opportunities pass by our communities for want of no more than the time of one or two experienced community workers who could make things happen. I would like to share with you one sad illustration of this reality.
Over the past 20 years, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives has had a rural housing program that with some Federal support has yielded many results. In two of the poorest rural counties in the nation, Greene and Sumter, Alabama, our efforts have led to the construction of 350 single family homes and 4 cooperatively-run housing projects with a total of 126 rental units. To enable the families who now reside there to fulfill their dream was no easy matter.
Our Housing specialist, the late Cleo Askew, labored day in and day out on details of construction. But more than that, he guided the very poor families on the hundreds of technical details they needed to address to even think of owning a home. Many had credit problems that had to be cured to qualify for loans. Negotiations were made with hospitals for payment plans to meet unpaid bills. Frequently, older people needed to correct problems with loans they had cosigned to help other family members. Day in and day out, Cleo worked with these families, never giving up on anyone.
Page 602 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year, the Federation at long last had secured funding to hire assistants to work with Cleo and to be trained by him and introduced to the networks and communities essential to making housing happen for very poor people. Unfortunately, before new staff could be hired, Cleo died suddenly of a heart attack. At the time of his death, he was working with over 75 more families who sought his assistance, while also training our other staff in Mississippi to do more housing work. In rural Epes, Alabama, Cleo is irreplaceable. The contacts he had can only be transferred over time and personally to new and dedicated people who are hard to find in our rural communities. We miss him and we know this work shortened his life and left him no opportunity to enjoy his accomplishments.
How many other Cleos have we lost to overwork, who for years filled with their time and dedication, their spirit and their very lives, the gaps that are everywhere in our communities? Sometimes we forget to step back and see what we have achieved against all odds because what lies ahead of us is always looming large. Besides the housing in Greene and Sumter counties, the Federation has helped develop over 100 cooperatives and credit unions serving more than 25,000 borrowers across the South. We have assisted over 500 farmers to complete their application and appeals packages under the Pigford v. Glickman class action lawsuit. We have developed cooperatives and marketing projects, and are selling food in US cities and foreign nations.
Within the Rural Coalition, despite the fact that a majority of our members have been underserved or denied access to the programs of the Department of Agriculture and have had unequal access to commodity and trade programs, they have worked diligently together to develop new methods and new markets. A partnership of more than 15 diverse member groups have acquired a network of computers and developed internet and marketing skills. They have crossed the digital divide and began using the Rural Coalition SuperMarketcoop.com to market their products. Their latest project is a virtual CSA (community supported agriculture) that is being used to educate consumers as well as build new markets for participating coops.
Page 603 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our partner, the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, has created Patchwork Family Farms, which processes and markets fresh pork products directly to consumers and assures a fair price to all participating producers. Our member, the Sin Fronteras Organizing Project has built a center serving farmworkers in El Paso, and the Florida Association of Farmworkers has established three credit unions, a cooperative store, and labored to meet the housing and other needs of its more than 5000 farmworker members.
The farmers we represent have further determined that cooperation across borders and seasons can improve the viability of farms and communities. They have built new links across communities and regions, and through Supermarketcoop.com, created their own version of an alternative people to people North American Free Trade Agreement with our members and partners in Mexico. Along with linking U.S. consumers to Mexican products, members of the SuperMarketcoop.com are preparing to serve the growing middle-income market in Mexico with products from U.S. small farms..
These are only a few examples of the achievements of our hardworking members. Without them, our communities would certainly be even more poor.
At a time when policy makers are contemplating Federal support of faith based organizations to accomplish work that has been difficult for others, we strongly recommend that the Congress focus as much support on the Community Based sector which represents poor people, serves their needs, and is accountable to them. These organizations need and deserve to be recognized, valued and supported. Experience shows that policy makers have called on our organizations, we have delivered all that was required and more.
We recommend that this committee and the Congress:
Support, fully fund and expand those programs which dedicate resources to capacity development of non-profit community based organizations, including but not limited to:
The Department of Housing Rural Housing and Economic Development Program, the funding for which has been reduced from $25 million to zero in the Administration's budget. The capacity building portion of this program is a model that should be extended to USDA housing and economic development programs.
Page 604 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The USDA Rural Community Development Initiative, one of the few USDA programs which supports capacity building.
The Rural Cooperative Business Development Program which supports cooperative development and training centers.
The Department of Commerce Technology Opportunities Program which has helped rural communities overcome the digital divide by fostering creative partnerships and programs with leadership from community-based organizations.
Provide appropriate authority in every USDA rural development program, and within the Department as a whole, to allow USDA agencies enter into grants and contracts with community-based organizations to supply the outreach and technical assistance they are best suited to deliver to poor communities.
We further recommend that Congress support the role of Federal employees, especially in rural development agencies, and reverse the disturbing trend of contracting out the work Federal employees have previously done. Federal employees can more easily be held accountable for delivering fair services with appropriate oversight. The same is not true for contractors who may have no relationship with, or roots in, the communities in they are working with, and have strong incentives to cut corners in services. Contracts also do not supply the support or incentive to build the ongoing relationships that are essential to any sustained rural development. We join our members the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3354 and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3870, in urging you to support the Truthfulness, Responsibility and Accountability in Contracting (TRAC) Act, which would correct longstanding problems and inequities in the contracting out process that are preventing the delivery of effective, reliable and affordable public services to the constituents we represent.
III. RURAL DEVELOPMENT MADE A VITAL PART OF FARM POLICY, ASSURING ALL BASIC NEEDS ARE MET AND NO COMMUNITY IS LEFT BEHIND
Page 605 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural Development Programs and Services must be a fundamental part of any cohesive national farm and food policy, and must be designed in such a way and funded at such as level as to assure basic needs of all rural people are met equitably and that no community is left behind.
We strongly support the position of over 100 members of Congress as conveyed to this committee that Rural Development must be an integral part of the 2002 farm bill and that budgetary resources must be shared among all critical farm policy goals, including rural development. We urge all other members of this committee to support their request.
The Rural Development Programs of the Department of Agriculture do not reach the vast majority of our community-based members. Application processes are often cumbersome and are largely controlled at the state level, where many community-based organizations have not achieved the network of relationships necessary for successful proposals. In many states, our members have had no success in gaining access to resources.
We recommend that Congress investigate further the barriers to community based partnerships and participation in existing programs and appropriately modify application and review procedures that may create barriers.
We further recommend that Congress expand support for rural cooperative development. Targeted funding should be provided for land based economic development in rural communities led by community based organizations. Specifically, funds should be set aside for cooperative development led by small farmers, farmworkers and other rural residents; and cooperative ownership of value added processing facilities and land trusts. Other priorities include funding for credit unions, rural community development, crossing the digital divide, and meeting the housing, health and educational needs of farmworkers and all other rural people who have been denied access to resources for development. Full funding for programs including Rural Cooperative Development Program, Farmworker and other Rural Housing Programs and the Technology Opportunity Program under the Commerce Department are also essential.
Page 606 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the past decade, community based groups working at the grassroots level have often been bypassed or overrun by the many efforts to develop state rural development councils. While the councils in some states have reached out to community based partners, often their overall agenda differs from that of poor communities. Most of all, resources have not been provided to develop the relationships necessary to make the councils effective. This is not to say the councils are not useful.
We recommend that resources be earmarked to assist community based organizations to develop partnerships with councils in a few states and develop models that could be more useful and more widely applied.
Housing is an urgent need. We share the belief of our member organization, the Housing Assistance Council, that Federal Government should commit to a comprehensive strategy for combating the housing affordability crisis in rural America.
Nearly one-quarter of nonmetropolitan households pay more than 30 percent of their incomes, and over 2.1 million rural households pay more than half of their incomes, for housing. Also, despite housing quality improvements in recent decades, substandard housing continues to plague rural America, and many communities—especially those in persistent poverty areas such as Appalachia, the Lower Mississippi Delta, the U.S.-Mexico border, and Native American lands—lack an adequate supply of decent housing, especially rental housing, available at any price.
To meet urgent housing needs we recommend that Congress:
Support homeownership through full funding of programs that foster Federal public-private partnership strategies, such as the USDA Rural Housing Service (RHS) Section 502 Homeownership Loan program and the HUD Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), are critical to making the American dream of homeownership possible for many rural households.
Page 607 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Support and fully fund rental housing production program to assure an adequate supply of housing opportunities for very low-income rural households. RHS's Section 515 Rural Rental Housing program reaches tenants with incomes at less than 50 percent of area median. Annual appropriations for this critical program, however, which reached $540 million in FY 1994, have been drastically reduced in recent years.
Rural communities face growing crises in prepayment and expiring use of rental units subsidized by both RHS and HUD and in rental assistance renewal needs. More than 11,000 projects encompassing nearly 290,500 units of RHS Section 515 rental housing are at risk of subsidized loan prepayment, conversion to market rents, and displacement of tenants. Funds that provide for the permanent preservation of at-risk units via transfer to nonprofit organizations should be increased in order to protect the Federal Government's significant investment in this housing stock.
The recent appropriations trend of replacing direct spending for rural housing loans with loan guarantees harms the neediest rural families. Loan guarantees are not as successful at providing housing opportunities to the rural families that are most in need. On average, loan guarantees serve households at 110 percent of area median income, while direct loans reach families at 60 percent of area median income.
Migrant farmworkers and Native Americans, the worst-housed Americans, require programs targeted to their needs. Federal housing policy should include strategies that target funds to populations with persistent needs. The RHS Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing and the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act programs, for example, should be adequately funded.
The housing needs of low-income, elderly persons will increasingly impact rural America. Elderly householders make up 26 percent of the rural population and approximately 60 percent of them are poor or near poor. These seniors are also more likely to live in substandard housing than seniors in the Nation as a whole. Given the shortage of affordable rental and assisted living housing and the needs for housing rehabilitation and accessibility-modifications in rural areas, the impending progression of the baby boom generation into old age requires substantial investment to avoid an elderly housing crisis.
Page 608 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Capacity building resources and operating funds are needed for local organizations in rural areas to be able to tackle local housing problems. Nonprofit organizations often have the will, but little means for engaging in the increasingly complex task of affordable housing development. Funding for initiatives such as the USDA Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI), HUD's Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development and Community Housing Development Organizations under the HOME program should be increased and made more accessible to the most rural and impoverished communities.
Lack of access to affordable housing credit is still a problem for many rural Americans. Rural households have a harder time than their urban counterparts in finding mortgage credit, and they generally pay more for the credit they do receive. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which has increased credit availability and community lending opportunities in many low-income urban neighborhoods, should be extended to smaller banks so that its reach expands into rural America. Federal efforts to protect credit consumers from predatory lending practices, including home buyer education and credit counseling services, should also be increased to reach more rural households.
Homeless assistance strategies should account for rural homelessness. Despite improved recognition of the problem of rural homelessness in recent years, Federal homeless assistance policies remain biased toward urban communities. Rural homeless assistance organizations' competitiveness is compromised by their relative lack of experience, lack of access to matching funds and the increased costs of serving a dispersed population. Federal housing policy should include increased formula funding or set-asides for rural homeless assistance, and capacity building for rural organizations addressing homelessness.
Successful housing strategies require more than just ''bricks and mortar,'' and successful self-sufficiency strategies must account for housing needs. The myriad of needs of rural low-income households and their communities must be addressed in order for housing situations to improve. Likewise, welfare reform and other self-sufficiency strategies can succeed only if people have decent homes and supportive services to assist them in the transition to work. Federal Government agencies should expand inter-agency cooperation efforts aimed at a holistic approach to solving local housing, economic and community development needs.
Page 609 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IV. IN ORDER TO BE TRULY VIABLE AND EQUIBLE, THE BENEFITS OF OUR NATIONAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURE POLICY SHOULD ACCRUE TO AND NOT EXTRACT FROM RURAL COMMUNITIES
A viable and equitable agriculture policy is fundamental to any rural development strategy. Recent farm bills have redirected resources to larger farmers. However, the Small and Minority Farm Sector has held on through many adversities and appears to be resilient and with appropriate investment, ripe for expansion. The Federal Government should invest in and not undercut their efforts. Moreover, our farm policy should be constructed in such a way as to assure the benefits of agriculture are accrued within, rather than extracted from, rural communities, their land and resource base, and their future viability
The word ''rural'' was once almost synonymous with agriculture. The growing expansion of corporate agriculture and industry concentration has forced many families out of farming and closed down the locally owned businesses that supported and survived off of the traditional agriculture industry. No longer does ''rural'' indicate a community of thriving family farmers and without this economic base, no longer does agriculture promise a viable future for rural people and places. The loss of agriculture as a foundation has left many rural communities in crisis and rural people with few economic opportunities. Rural communities are struggling to find their identity in this new era of agriculture and development.
The current structure of agriculture programs strongly favors large producers over small, a trend we urge Congress to reverse. Recent increases in the payment limitation and return to annual and untargeted disaster relief subsidies, while politically feasibly as emergency response, have enlarged and redirected farm support payments to ever-larger farmers. However, the continued priority on policies that emphasize production over value and sustainability are not only shortsighted. They rob rural communities of a critical income base and diminish the value of the land, water, air and soil.
We recommend that Congress reinstitute non-recourse loans and supply management which achieve fair price in the marketplace and reduce taxpayer expenditures while better valuing the land and the contributions of family farmers.
Page 610 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The farmers and rural communities we serve have employed determination and creativity to remain on the land. They have cooperatively derived new methods to diversify production, produce value-added products and enter new markets. The believe and support a strong network of thriving, successful, small and mid-sized family farms as being fundamental to the health of all people and to the economies of rural communities.
We propose Congress at long last establish a program to meet the needs of limited resource and minority farmers. We recommend the ''Small Farms of the New Millennium'' payment program supports small farmers to increase the viability of their operations so they can reclaim their role in local economies.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
In order to meet the goals summarized above, we share the following specific policy recommendations with the Committee.
Comprehensive Farm and Food Policy—The debate on the 2002 farm bill must be democratic and open to all with a stake in the food system. The resulting farm and food policy must be comprehensive and assure the needs of all stakeholders, including those who lack the resources to participate, are met. The policy should promote bio-diversity and protection of the global resource base and assure the food security of future generations.
Commodity Programs and Disaster Protection—We recommend that non-recourse loan programs be restored for commodity programs in a manner that will provide producers with a fair price. Congress should set commodity loan rates at a level that provides cost of production plus reasonable profit in the marketplace without the need for a deficiency payment. Supply management is an essential feature of such a program, which should be at no cost to the taxpayer. An adequate program of loan rates and supply management would help assure more balanced development on a global scale of small farm agriculture and protection of the resource base.
Page 611 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Farmer Owned Grain Reserve - Growing expenditures on disasters underscore the need to adopt time-tested methods that save grain during years of abundant harvest and use it in years of shortfall. We recommend a farmer-owned grain reserve be reestablished, and favor a plan that allows farmers to hold the grain, compensates them fairly for storage, and provides them with decision making power on the conditions of its release.
Small Farms of the New Millennium Payments: Many small and minority farmers, particularly those with who produce perishable products or seek a diversified operation, have been unable to access any Federal farm benefits. Little investment has been provided to develop this potentially viable small farm base to undergird poor rural communities. We propose that the savings accumulated from adopting a price support program that does not require deficiency payments be dedicated instead to this program. Farmers with gross sales of less than $100,000 and a total family income of not more than $55,000 from all sources would receive a subsidy of not less than $10,000 per year subsidy. Participating farmers would receive technical assistance from community based groups to prepare a 5 year plan for their operation. The program would serve to jump start the small farm sector, encourage crop diversity and entry into new markets, and allow flexibility to farmers who are in program crop programs, and those who are not. This program could offer some of the flexibility sought in 1996, and help address critical issues such as financial and risk management, marketing and diversification which are essential elements of successful and viable small farm enterprises in all regions of the nation.
Technical Assistance and Outreach Program for Minority and Limited Resource Farmers: Minority and other small farmers still experience barriers and lack of information on USDA programs resulting in much lower participation rates. The underfunded Section 2501 Minority Farm Outreach Program established in the 1990 farm bill attempts with very limited resources to fill these gaps. Our research indicates that farmers who have received assistance from community based organizations funded through this legislation had higher rates of participation and understanding of USDA programs than those who had not. The current Section 2501 Program should be made mandatory and funding authority increased to $50 million annually. We further propose that outreach and technical assistance authority be extended to serve participants and prospective participants in farm programs and the small farmers of the new millennium program. Congress should grant clear authority and funding to allow USDA agencies to contract with community based organizations and educational institutions with demonstrated experience in serving low income, limited resource and minority farmers.
Page 612 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
American Indian Agriculture: We urge support for the comprehensive proposals set forth by the Intertribal Agriculture Council to foster and expand Indian Agriculture. We also urge full funding for the Indian Reservation Extension Agent Program. Unlike virtually every farm and urban county in the country, only Indian Reservations have never been afforded extension services. This program, which has been consistently underfunded, covers the cost of extension agents to work out of offices on Indian Reservations, and helps to correct a longstanding inequity in services. Our campaign endorses the recommendation of the Intertribal Agriculture Council.
Equitable Access to USDA Programs: Currently, the county committees and other local USDA entities which allocate farm program resources do not operate uniformly and equitably for all farmers and assure the fair allocation among minority, beginning and limited resource farmers. Without reforms to make these entities more responsive and reflective of a county's diverse population, USDA remains liable for inequitable delivery of services and disparate treatment of its constituents. Necessary reforms including making minority advisors voting members, assuring fair participation in county committee elections, and open and public reporting of election participation and results. The use of target participation rates programs established in the 1987 Agriculture Credit Act and open reporting participation in USDA programs according to race, ethnicity and gender should be reviewed and extended to all USDA programs on a county, state and national basis. Establishment of a Minority Farmers Registry is critical to provide a baseline to prevent further land loss and so that programs and policies can be developed to accomplish this goal.
Food and Nutrition Assistance: Participation in food stamp programs had declined rapidly despite the fact that there has been a substantially lower reduction in people living in poverty. It is estimated that 2 million more people live in poverty and do not receive food stamps today then in 1995. We support the Nutrition Assistance for Working Families and Seniors ACT which will: Restore food stamp eligibility to all legal immigrants; End the child penalty in food stamp law; Increase the minimum food stamp benefit to $25; Include child support in the existing food stamp earnings disregard; Expand state options for transitional food stamp assistance; Improve access to food stamp information; and Increase access to emergency food.
Page 613 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Access to Food: All people should be assured access to an affordable and nutrition diet. US Food programs, including Food stamps, should receive adequate funding to assure all needs are met. Benefits, including food stamps for legal residents, must be restored or extended. Access for small and minority farmers to provide products for feeding programs should be assured, with specific outreach funds and authority added.
Community Food Security: Programs should improve community food security by promoting collaborative relationships and the planning and implementation of community food plans and strategies. Congress should expand current programs and assure specific outreach and authority for participation by community based groups serving minority and other small farmers.
ADDENDUM A. - ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATIONS
Rural Coalition/Coalicin Rural
The Rural Coalition is an alliance of regionally and culturally diverse organizations working to build a more just and sustainable food system. We join together to work for a system that brings fair returns to minority farmers, small farmers and rural communities, provides just and fair working conditions for farmworkers, protects the environment, and offers safe and healthy food to consumers. The Rural Coalition advocates for national policies that support these goals and initiate economic development efforts to bridge the digital divide and help our diverse members market the products of their small farms.
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund
The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund is a resource and advocacy association involving 25,000 low-income rural families, organized into over 100 cooperatives, credit unions and community-based economic development groups across the South. Organized in 1967, the Federation has a quarter century of direct, cutting edge experience providing outreach and technical assistance to under-served farmers throughout the southeast. Since the mid–1980's, the Federation has worked in coalition with other progressive farm groups for better prices, more accessible credit and special rights for farmers of color to compensate for decades of discrimination and neglect by USDA and other government agencies.
Page 614 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
The Missouri Rural Crisis Center is a progressive, nonprofit organization with more than 5,500 member families from all over Missouri. The Center works to preserve family farms, promote stewardship of the land and environmental integrity, and strive for economic and social justice by building unity and mutual understanding among diverse groups, both rural and urban. Missouri Rural Crisis Center members work toward equitable farm and food policies that pay farmers a fair price for their livestock and crops while providing high-quality food at affordable prices to consumers.
Statement of Leland Swenson, National Farmers Union
In the 7 years since its creation in 1994, USDA Rural Development has taken on some of the most difficult, and-by necessity-most creative tasks in rural America. Whether it is the creation of new value added projects in farm country, a new cooperative housing project in the deep South or an Empowerment Zone on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rural Development has consistently stepped up to the plate and found solutions to tough problems.
National Farmers Union believes it's time to expand the mission of this agency by adding new tools to the tool box and by expanding on the existing ones. We do not propose broad new programs but we do propose to expand on the philosophies that currently drive the mission area's four major thrusts. With our proposed adjustments we believe that hundreds of thousands of rural Americans will see an improvement in their standard of living. The price for these expanded services will be modest, approximately 9 percent more then the current budget. Rural Development's four agencies, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Business Cooperative Service and the Office of Community Development, are uniquely positioned among Federal agencies to address the needs of rural America. With their local field office structure and experienced staff the agencies of Rural Development have the greatest potential for successfully addressing the needs of our rural citizens.
Page 615 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The adoption and implementation of our proposals will mean improved housing in our most rural areas, new value added cooperatives in our farm communities and greater access to technology in remote communities.
We believe it is imperative that USDA continue as the principal agency in development and delivery of these programs under the oversight of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.
We have addressed our proposals to modifications in the law relative to each of Rural Development's four major missions:
THE RURAL BUSINESS AND COOPERATIVE SERVICE: We believe that our proposed new emphasis on cooperative development, program adjustments and new programs will assist farmers in becoming part of a value added cooperative and help reduce the increased dependence of farmers on Federal Government payments for their income. These changes directly improve the capacity of the government to assist the formation of these new ventures.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
1. Expand Cooperative Development Centers to all states and put funding on a three year cycle. To encourage these centers in their efforts.
2. Improve the Cooperative Stock Share Program by:
a. Making it available for expansion of some existing cooperatives.
b. Remove the requirement for review of farmer's financial statements.
c. Eliminate the requirement for additional collateral besides the stock;
This program has not been implemented in the way congress intended it is necessary to clarify these issues in order to insure its full utilization.
Page 616 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Provide each state office with $1 million of feasibility study money. The feasibility of any venture is critical, these funds will help make sure that these projects are viable
4. Increase cooperative staff by 50 (one for each state). USDA has not been able to meet the growing demand for cooperative development services. These new FTE's are essential to accomplish the mission.
5. Create a forgivable loan program for investment in intangible assets that can't be funded by existing programs. Current programs require collateral before a loan can be made but some newly created marketing cooperatives do not have hard assets and have needs for capital.
6. Start a rural cooperative and business equity fund. Under capitalization has been one of the significant down falls of many cooperatives. Additional capital would make the difference between some coops succeeding or failing.
7. Initiate a cooperative stock share risk program for which the government accepts part of the risk for a small farmer to invest in a value added cooperative. Many limited resource farmers are not able to become part of new generation projects by accepting part of the risk USDA would make it possible for them.
8. Cap the fees on Business and Industry Loan Guarantee fees at 2 percent. There are current proposals to raise this fee to 3 percent, capping it at 2 percent will help keep the program affordable.
9. Change the name to Rural Cooperative Business Service. To recognize the importance of development of new cooperatives and shift the agencies focus to this mission.
THE RURAL HOUSING SERVICE: We believe these changes will assist thousands of farmers and small town residents in accessing previously unavailable. Additionally, families will see a reduced cost in achieving affordable housing.
Page 617 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PROPOSED CHANGES:
1. Change program rules to assist farmers and citizens of small communities in accessing affordable housing by:
a. Adjust the program to allow for the way farmers calculate income. There is a significant gap in availability for 30 year credit for homes on farms. Farms Service Agency programs seldom are used and Rural Housing Service programs were not designed for farms.
b. Require the agency to aggressively offer the program to farmers;
c. Allow for appraisal adjustments in small towns. Small towns also lack available credit because appraisals frequently don't make the requirements of the agency, adjustments would help make more loans possible
2. Role back the increased loan guarantee fee from the current 2 percent to 1 percent. A recent increase in loan guarantee fees have made these loans much less affordable and have negatively impacted on the program.
THE RURAL UTILIES SERVICE. These changes could improve access to technology, create new jobs and provide new alternative energy sources.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
1. Add tele-work as an eligible purpose to the distance learning tele-medicine program and increase its funding. Creation of distance working centers are one of the most creative new ideas for creating jobs in remote areas, this proposal allows for grants and loans to start these centers.
2. Add a grant/loan program for remote communities to access delivery of high speed internet and other technology services. The program would work similarly to the existing water and sewer program, making technology as affordable in remote locations as in more heavily populated areas.
Page 618 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. These strategic proposals would reaffirm the empowerment process and continue the Office of Community Development's efforts to expand the agencies efforts in providing technical assistance. These proposals could directly benefit 75,000 rural Americans
PROPOSED CHANGES:
1. Authorize a new round of five rural Empowerment Zones and twenty Enterprise Communities. While there is other proposals this empowerment process has proven itself and should be continued.
2. Allow State Directors to create and assist Champion Communities and Enterprise Communities within existing budget authority. Giving state directors greater latitude to use their resources to meet the needs of special circumstance communities would greatly improve effectiveness of the program.
3. Authorizes a new grant program to assist small business facilitation programs.
The overall impact of these changes will dramatically expand the mission of USDA/Rural Development. During discussion of the farm bill, it is important that Congress recognize the need to aggressively expand the missions of USDA/Rural Development. If rural America is going to move toward a time of more sustainable economic development, we must address these priorities.
Statement of Hank Herrera, Community Food Security Coalition
My name is Henry Herrera, and I want to thank the chairman and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the subject of rural development in the farm bill. I am the president of the Community Food Security Coalition, a national organization serving 265 local and state organizations in 41 states and the District of Columbia. I am also the director for the NorthEast Neighborhood Alliance in Rochester, New York, which is committed to rebuilding our regional food system from the bottom up and the inside out. In Rochester, we work in three low-income neighborhoods in the heart of the inner city. We create food production gardens, sponsor farm stands for regional farmers, and organize retail food stores where few exist, all of which are owned by residents of the neighborhood. We directly link economic development with the regional food system, and we are hopeful for the future.
Page 619 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You might ask why an urban neighborhood organizer is testifying on rural development. I hope my testimony will give you a clear answer to that question. Fundamentally, the future of the small and even medium size family farms and many small rural communities remaining in rural America depends on the knowledge, action and support of urban Americans, all participants in the food system. The failure to integrate food and farm policy as the US farm economy is dramatically reorganized will have enormous consequences for nutrition, hunger alleviation and economic development potential in both urban and rural areas. This is especially the case for the most vulnerable, especially children, the elderly, and low-income communities of color.
The constituents and leaders of the many organizations around the country that make up the Community Food Security Coalition are what the USDA defines as ''socially disadvantaged'' and ''limited resource'' farmers. Healthy farms and healthy communities are connected directly when their food is grown and consumed at the local and regional levels. We are dedicated to building strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems that ensure access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food to all people at all times. This is what we call ''community food security.''
We seek to foster community self-reliance in the production, processing, and consumption of their own food, as well as to create regionally-based food systems grounded in the principles of justice, democracy, and sustainability. We are hopeful in part because our youth are energized by this new movement toward community-based agriculture. Nevertheless, there are many problems to be solved, some of which require national attention and Federal resources. The needs for rural and community based development are many and the stakes are high. The problems we seek to address with community food enterprise development serving both rural and urban neighborhoods include:
lack of access to fresh food,
high rates of diet-related diseases,
Page 620 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the family farm crisis,
negative environmental impacts in food production and distribution,
dis-empowered neighborhoods and communities, and
stubbornly high rates of food insecurity even in periods of economic growth.
These problems are pervasive and complicated, transcending simple economic solutions. They require, and our constituents demand, comprehensive solutions—approaches that solve problems in food insecure and economically struggling communities through the empowerment of socially disadvantaged populations and family farmers - by building vital community food systems.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a theoretical matter. There are hundreds of communities, both rural and urban, that are creating exciting collaborations between private, public, and non-profit sectors at the local and state level. I will briefly describe just two examples of the wide variety of community food projects found in the United States today: the Patchwork Family Farm Value Added Processing Project in Missouri and the Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids Project in Los Angeles. The Patchwork Family Farms and the Food Cooperative program markets pork produced by family farmers through buying clubs connected to African-American churches. The project is striving to become self-sufficient through building their capacity for value-added processing activities. It hopes to increase processing capacity by 20 percent and increase profitability per hog by producing and marketing additional value-added products. The second project, Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids established salad bars in three low-income schools in the city of Los Angeles (one predominantly Latino, another mostly African American, and a third predominantly Asian American). The produce for these salad bars is sourced from regional family farmers through farmer's markets. Since its inception, this project has generated thousands of dollars of extra sales for these farmers, and been wildly successful among the schoolchildren, who in turn have increased their consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables. There are many more projects happening across the country, but these give you a taste of the innovative nature of community food security efforts.
Page 621 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is the Federal policy response needed to secure healthy farms, food and communities? The response must be about more than commodity programs. It must be about more than trade rules. It must be about more than risk and asset management for food sector investors. It must be about more than nutrition feeding programs to keep those whom the economy does not benefit from going hungry. All these programs are important, but by themselves, they are not going to solve the problems listed above. Feeding all members of our communities in ways that give dignity, build confidence, inform citizenship, and foster self-reliance is very much an American tradition. Experience shows that comprehensive approaches require comprehensive policies.
Both of the programs mentioned above are funded through the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program, a very successful small program authorized in the 1996 farm bill, and administered by USDA CSREES. The purpose of this program is to ''increase food security in communities by bringing the whole food system together to assess strengths, establish linkages, and create systems that improve the self-reliance of community members over their food needs''. Since 1996 more than 80 local collaborative community food projects in 37 states have received matching support for innovative, comprehensive approaches to improve local employment, enhance local food production, provide high quality food to low income people, and multiply their success. Between 1996 and 2000, there were more than 400 excellent community food projects that applied for USDA funding beyond what was available. The multi-stakeholder, comprehensive elements of the Community Food Projects Program have been so successful that they are being modeled in other programs and proposals at the Federal, state, and local levels.
Our proposals for the next farm bill build directly on the success of this program, and are divided into two sets of recommendations: those which build directly on the Community Food Projects, and those which further stimulate local and regional food systems. Both sets of recommendations are linked in our overarching initiative called ''Healthy Farms, Food, and Communities Act''. The investment to date in the Community Food Program has been very modest, a total of $11.5 million in Federal support over the past five years. While not by itself adequate to meet the challenges, the proposed funding for community food security programs will complement other initiatives—enabling socially disadvantaged and limited resource producers to access other existing and new state and Federal programs.
Page 622 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Specific recommendations:
1. Increase funding to $7.5 million annually for the core Community Food Projects Program, and provide an additional $2.5 million for a new mini-grants component for smaller single focus projects such as community kitchens or garden projects.
2. Incorporate a Planning Grant component to the Community Food Projects Program to fund program and business planning and community food assessments to guide successful project development.
3. Establish a Local Food Bonus Account to increase the purchase of locally or regionally produced food by institutions serving low and moderate-income households.
4. Launch a USDA Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids Initiative to integrate a general policy to purchase locally with a Farm-to-School Seed Grant Fund and expansion of the current Small Farms/School Meals Program
5. Call for Community Food Security Research, Training, and Education Program to link and develop research programs to support community food security assessments, new model strategies, and a new generation of scholars in this field.
6. Continue and expand the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program with
unconditional funding not tied to other WIC or TEFAP Programs
More details on each of the five recommendations can be found in the ''Healthy Farms, Food and Communities Initiative'' from the Community Food Security Coalition. We recognize that our initiatives cut across rural development, nutrition, and research titles and we expect to have community food security elements in all those parts of future farm bills. However, it is time to end the development of food policy in this country in such a manner that compartmentalizes solutions to nutrition, food and farm problems. The result of such segregation is that solutions have been disjointed and limited in their effectiveness. The current farm crisis has been caused, in large part, by policies that have supported the specialization, standardization and centralization of our farm and food system. In our view, American society would be better served by refocusing the discussion on our goals for food production. From this discussion can come the basic organizing principles for the entire food and farming system.
Page 623 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A forward-thinking approach will incorporate the historic mandates of developing food policies that provide for the living wage and good nutrition of all people as well as security on the land. In addition, these policies will embrace the future of a sustainable food system that recognizes our interdependence with nature and provides for the dignity of every person and living thing.
Once again we are reviewing and rewriting agricultural farm policy for the United States. In my testimony today, I suggest that we bring the broader, historic perspective to the once-every-5-year debate on the farm bill. The historic farm programs of the New Deal were more than farm supports; they were policies that ''provided for the living wage and good nutrition of all people as well as security on the land.'' Today, it is once again time to seamlessly recombine farm and food policy in this country, in a way that promotes equitable, economic and ecological connections between farmers, consumers and everyone between.
Policies to support these kinds of food systems across the country are going to require the involvement of people from all walks of the food system from consumers to farmers. It may seem daunting, as indeed it is, and yet there are communities ready to take the challenging path if they are called and given some encouragement. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, our rural and urban neighborhoods will lose not only small business, farmers and the vulnerable in society if the challenge is not taken. America will lose the very possibility of rebuilding rural society that feeds the bodies and the spirit of our communities.
Statement of Kim Leval, the Center for Rural Affairs
Thank you for the opportunity for the Center for Rural Affairs to submit written testimony as you review rural development and agricultural research policy in preparation for the next farm bill.
Many of the nation's farm and ranch communities are in economic trouble. In the heartland, the poverty rate in the farm and ranch counties of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska and the Dakotas is 50 percent higher than in the metropolitan counties of the region. In 1999, half of the nation's 20 lowest income counties were farm and ranch counties in Nebraska and the Dakotas. Trampled Dreams: The Neglected Economy of the Rural Great Plains (publication available from the Center for Rural Affairs, Executive Summary posted at www.cfra.org).
Page 624 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a recent New York Times article, other rural counties in trouble were featured. California's Central Valley farm belt is one of the richest food-producing regions in the world. It also suffers from a high unemployment and poverty rate. Unemployment in the valley, with 5 million residents in 18 counties, averages about 10 percent. This rate is about three times the national average. Three counties in the Valley are now paying people to move to other states. One Tulare County official stated that when the Valley had enough permanent jobs, Tulare County would stop moving people out. A Fertile Farm Region Pays Its Jobless to Quit California, New York Times (June 18, 2001).
We believe that revitalization of rural communities in agricultural areas should begin with family-scale, agricultural and agriculturally related enterprises. The farm and ranch share of the food system profit is currently falling rapidly. According to University of Maine economist Stewart Smith, formerly the economist for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, producers now capture between seven and eight percent of every dollar of food system profit when all expenses for purchased inputs are considered. An extension of the current trend line to 2030 would drop producers' profit to zero.
The replacement of owner-operated farms and ranches by large operations worked by low wage laborers is leading to profound socioeconomic decline. Research by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment has concluded:
As farm size and absentee ownership increase, social conditions in the local community deteriorate. We have found depressed median family incomes, high levels of poverty, low education levels, social and economic inequality between ethnic groups, etc., associated with land and capital concentration in agriculture.... Communities that are surrounded by farms that are larger than can be operated by a family unit have a bi-modal income distribution, with a few wealthy elites, a majority of poor laborers and virtually no middle class.
Page 625 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To revitalize agricultural communities, we must provide the necessary tools to assist farmers and ranchers to capture more of the food system dollar and assist entrepreneurs with small business start-up.
In order to increase their share of the food dollar, producers are eager to tap more lucrative markets—both foreign and domestic—adopt new management skills and technologies gained through innovative research, and build novel, entrepreneurial partnerships. Small business owners are seeking programs that are of a scale they can take advantage of and through which they can create economic opportunity for themselves and for their communities. Agriculture policy should be reformed to help family farmers, ranchers, and small business owners pursue these goals.
We should also make a much greater commitment to rural development programs that support entrepreneurship and new enterprise development. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive in rural America. For example, according to research by the Center for Rural Affairs, in the farm and ranch counties of Nebraska, over 70 percent of net job growth over the last decade was in non-farm self-employment.
Family farmers and ranchers, as well as many small business owners in rural areas, are looking for research, marketing, and rural development options that work for them. Often, they find instead programs that are geared towards large agricultural operations and businesses - programs that further cconcentrate agriculture and rural business into fewer and fewer hands - missing the mark for a vast majority of rural Americans. It doesn't have to be this way.
Agriculture and rural development have long been thought of as separate issues when in actuality they must go hand in hand for long term revitalization to take place in agricultural communities.
A Farm Bill Agricultural Community Revitalization & Enterprise Initiative. The Agricultural Community Revitalization and Enterprise (ACRE) farm bill initiative is designed to provide farmers, ranchers, and other rural business enterprises with tools and opportunities to foster agriculturally based rural development. The overall goal is to promote rural enterprises that support family farms and ranches, provide stable jobs paying a livable wage, and increase the level of profits retained in the rural communities. The Center for Rural Affairs, working closely with numerous organizations in the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, has developed the ACRE initiative as a major program for rural development in the next farm bill.
Page 626 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ACRE Initiative offers farmers and ranchers the tools they need to increase their share of the profit in the food system. It provides rural people with the resources to increase self-employment opportunities in their communities. The core purposes of ACRE are to:
Increase the farm and ranch share of food system profit;.
Support revitalization of agricultural communities through entrepreneurship (on and off-farm), value-adding enterprises, and alternative marketing channels.; and
Enhance the availability and diversity of agricultural products produced in a manner that contributes to the social, environmental, and economic vitality of agricultural communities and the Nation as a whole.
Establishing a Competitive Grant Program. The ACRE Initiative would establish a $500 million per year competitive grant program encouraging collaboration among a wide range of eligible recipients including farm and ranch networks, cooperatives, producer associations, community based organizations including those that serve small minority and socially disadvantaged landholders, small business associations, community development corporations, universities, and others.
Grants would range from three to five years in amounts from not more than $250,000 for single entity grants up to a maximum of $2.5 million for more collaborative proposals. Grants would be targeted to those proposals best integrating all three ACRE program purposes.
Examples of projects that could be funded under this program include projectsthose that:
Provide technical assistance, training, mentoring, and business incubation and planning for start-up of food-related businesses and other enterprises in rural communities;.
Help farmers and ranchers gain more direct access, through marketing, processing, and distribution, to the end users of their products;
Page 627 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Develop the capacity for schools and other public institutions to purchase and use locally produced and fresh foods.; and
Research low cost food safety solutions appropriate for producers and small-scale processors that help them gain access to new markets.
In addition, the grant program emphasizes projects that include farmers and ranchers in both project development and implementation, including projects that provide direct financial assistance to farmers and ranchers for their participation in the project. With this design, farmers and ranchers could, for instance, receive technical assistance and dollars to support new marketing approaches or demonstration projects.
Examples of these projects include those which:
Develop processing capacity that is owned and operated by producers, or allow producers to participate in local or regional cooperative ventures.;
Provide producers with the legal advice, financial counseling, business planning, and other technical assistance necessary to begin farming or ranching.; and
Provide education and technical assistance to enable the producers to effectively ustilize electronic commerce to reach markets beyond their community or region.
What Sets ACRE Apart? ACRE offers a broad approach to rural revitalization and agricultural development that includes unique features.
Two Percent for Innovation
ACRE would provide an important complement to traditional farm income support programs. With a relatively small amount of money - roughly two percent of the amount spent last year on farm income support - we could provide a dramatic boost to entrepreneurial initiatives that enhance farm and ranch income and rural opportunity.
Combining Agriculture and Rural Development
ACRE takes a balanced and integrated approach by emphasizing the need to increase the family-scale farm and ranch share of the food system dollar; revitalizing agricultural communities, linking consumers and producers, and enhancing the natural resource base in ways that are profitable and good for communities. The intent of ACRE is to integrate research, extension, education, marketing, agricultural production, and rural development to accomplish these goals.
Page 628 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ACRE would assist many farmers and ranchers who are not served by current Federal farm programs because they produce agricultural products other than commodities. ACRE would also benefit those who need a small infusion of capital to establish entrepreneurial enterprises.
Building on the Existing Framework
ACRE can be used to link farmers, ranches, and small businesses with existing organizations such as Resource Conservation and Development Councils, Cooperative Extension Service, Rural Cooperative Business Centers, state agencies, and community organizations that can provide assistance and community linkages in project development and implementation.
New Partnerships and Cooperation. ACRE asks state and Federal agencies to answer the needs of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners in a more coordinated manner. Farmers, ranchers, and other entrepreneurs would guide ACRE programs and be essential partners in all aspects of the program's development, implementation, and evaluation.
Benefits for Consumers. Consumers have a stake in supporting ACRE. Farm, ranch, and general rural decline negatively affects us all. Keeping agriculture profitable and diverse, with land and resources distributed more broadly, results in broader societal benefits like good stewardship of land, air, water, and wildlife. Ensuring profits and quality of life for family farmers and ranchers rewards all consumers by providing greater food choice and access at grocery stores and restaurants; at institutions such as schools and hospitals; and through farmers' markets, Community Supported Agriculture organizations, E-commerce, and other forms of direct marketing.
FORMULATION OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
(AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH)
Page 629 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Moran, Thune, Osborne, Kennedy, Combest [ex officio], Baldacci, Phelps, Thompson of California, Baca, and Peterson.
Also present: Representative Dooley.
Staff present: Ryan Weston, subcommittee staff director; John Goldberg, Pam Scott, Callista Gingrich, chief clerk; Susanna Love, Andy Johnson and John Riley,
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. LUCAS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research to review agricultural research education extension programs will come to order.
Good morning, and thank you for being here at this extremely important hearing today. This is the subcommittee's fifth hearing in the last 22 days.
By taking a brief look at statistics, it is easy to see how important agricultural research is to the United States. In the 1960's, a farmer supplied 25.8 people in the United States and abroad with their food. In 1994, a farmer supplied approximately 129 people in the United States and abroad.
Page 630 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The efficiency of U.S. farmers also benefits the United States consumer in the pocketbook. The U.S. consumer spends approximately 9 percent of their income on food compared with 11 percent in the United Kingdom, 17 percent in Japan, 27 percent in South Africa, and 53 percent in India. Only through the best research in the world have U.S. producers been able to be so efficient and productive. However, we cannot take past successes for granted and become complacent because of that successful research.
I was forthright with our witnesses in our rural development hearing yesterday and will be so here today. This subcommittee and I can be your greatest champions in working to improve on the historic successes of agricultural research education and extension programs. To do this, however, we need sound ideas regarding how we might achieve structural improvements in order to garner and efficiently use future increases in this essential investment.
For example, many will come forward today asking for agricultural research funds to be doubled. Nearly all funds for agricultural research extension and education come out of discretionary funds controlled by the Appropriations Committee. Those entitlement funds that were set aside in 1996 through Fund for Rural America and 1998 through the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems have been limited or prohibited from being spent by appropriators. In doing so, these efforts were offset. Those offsets were used to fund actually other priorities such as nutrition programs, food safety inspection, and plant and animal health inspection.
While I am certain that many of us here on this dais would love to find additional resources for research extension and education programs, our role is not to appropriate but instead to establish policy, not only on how these funds should be used but, in addition, on how we might leverage Federal investments by encouraging investments by the State and local governments and the private sector. That is why today I am asking for clear direction on what the subcommittee can do to improve the structure and administration of these programs. If we can continue to demonstrate that the funds available are being used efficiently and effectively and in the best interest of the public, then we have a better chance of ensuring the necessary support to increase Federal investment in these programs.
Page 631 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to today's testimony as we review these research programs, and with that, I would turn to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Combest, for any comments or introductions he might care to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY COMBEST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just wanted to come and officially greet and pay my respects and my thanks to two very good friends who have had tremendous input in agriculture over the years, have been great resources for me personally and for this committee over the years, and that relationship continues.
To the current dean of the College of Agricultural and Natural Sciences at Texas Tech University, Dr. John Abernathy, who has been in that position for a number of years, I very much want to welcome him here today.
To the former dean of the same college, same university, went from being a Red Raider to a Cowboy, is now at Oklahoma State University, Dr. Sam Curl. Lot of years go into this past, and I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your having them both as witnesses. They are expert witnesses in this area.
And I would be somewhat remiss if I didn't say how nice it was to see Dr. Horn here. Normally I, fortunately, have the opportunity to see Dr. Horn in Lubbock, Texas, more than I see him here. You are always welcome and I look forward to continuing that, and, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your time.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair will accept statements for the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Putnam follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Page 632 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I welcome the opportunity to review the Federal agriculture policies affecting our Nation's agricultural research for the 2002farm bill. Agricultural research and particularly the continuing work of land-grant universities across the Nation has been the foundation of America's unparalleled success as a producer of food and fiber. The agricultural research conducted through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Land-Grant universities continues to propel agriculture in the United States to a top level in the international arena. In the reauthorization of thefarm bill, it is important that agricultural research, extension, and education programs be carefully considered and expanded where significant benefits may occur to American agriculture.
The need to re-tool research, extension and education programs to better meet the current needs of farmers and ranchers exists throughout our nation. Research is crucial to maintaining our edge in an increasingly competitive world market and working to conserve our water, air, and land. We must provide the research necessary to quickly respond to emerging plant and animal pests and diseases that threaten agricultural production. In addition, it is essential that we link research, extension and education programs to address environmental challenges currently facing farmers such as the scheduled phase out of methyl bromide and other issues.
Our agricultural research, extension and education system must accurately meet the needs of our rural communities. Toward that end we must assure that there are clear linkages between the research, extension and education system addressed in the farm bill. With continued support of agriculture research we can expect improved water quality, resource conservation and less dependence on non-renewable sources of energy.
Federal agricultural research should enhance global competitiveness and an improved balance of trade. Similarly, we can better protect our agricultural and natural resources from new, emerging, and imported plant pests and animal diseases is through an increase in necessary research.
Page 633 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To streamline research administrative efficiency, a uniform application of accountability regulations between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget should be adopted. At present, Florida submits more than 300 pages of ''reports'' each year in an effort to cover a wide disparity of interpretations between both agencies.
Concerning the important issue of Cooperative Extension Services of land-grant colleges, rural communities across the Nation can benefit from bringing the Cooperative Extension into the 21st century. One of the primary ways to meet this goal is to make information readily available to extension agents, farmers, and other users through the Internet. The time has come for a distance learning pilot program that will deliver courses on best management practices, and workforce development through an Internet distance-learning program administered by each land-grant university. Many land-grant universities are already at the forefront of technology by providing agricultural information online, but the universities lack necessary information online such as assistance with grant writing, regulatory compliance, and targeting government assistance, to name a few. This program would provide funding to states that are selected to deliver and make it user friendly for the farmers of today.
Another way to bring the Cooperative Extension Service into the 21st century is to encourage funding to reach rural communities. The funding formula in the Smith-Lever Act needs to be updated. I suggest that this formula be refined to ensure that rural communities receive an appropriate percentage of Federal funding.
Finally, to help bring the Cooperative Extension Service into the 21st century we must ensure that cooperative extension agents further their knowledge by supporting enrollment in Continuing Education classes. Continuing Education classes update agents on the newest and most up to date information and agriculture research.
Updating Cooperative Extension Services and expanding agricultural research programs will to help to deliver valuable information, research, and best management practices, to more effectively meet the needs of American agriculture.
Page 634 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. I would like to invite the first panel to come to the table. And we have with us Dr. Colien Hefferan, Administrator of the Cooperative State Research Extension Education Service, USDA, as the chairman mentioned, Dr. Floyd Horn, Administrator of the Agriculture Research Service, USDA; Dr. Victor L. Lechtenberg, chairman of the National Agricultural Research Extension Education and Economics Advisory Council from West Lafayette, Indiana; and from Oklahoma State University Dr. Sam Curl, dean and director of the Division of Agricultural and Natural Sciences; Bobby Phills, dean of the School of Agriculture, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida; Dr. Abernathy from Texas Tech; Dr. Terry Wolf, president of the National Coalition of Food and Agricultural Research from Homer, Illinois.
You may begin, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF COLIEN HEFFERAN, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EXTENSION, EDUCATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. HEFFERAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. My name is Colien Hefferan, and I am the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service at USDA. CSREES is the agency of USDA which engages the university-based knowledge system to address issues of national importance to agriculture. Agriculture is a knowledge-based global enterprise sustained by the innovation of scientists and educators around the Nation and the hard work of farmers and ranchers.
I am pleased to report to you today that in the 3 years since Congress passed the Agricultural Research Extension and Education Reform Act in 1998, CSREES has been successful in using the provisions of that law to implement its mission to advance knowledge resulting in improvements in agriculture. Effectively dealing with challenges such as foot and mouth disease, food safety resource conservation and rural revitalization would be very daunting without the federally assisted nationwide network of experiment stations, extension services and universities dedicated to the advancement of agriculture and the well-being of citizens.
Page 635 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The United States will need the most talented scientists and educators to maintain its leadership position in global agriculture. CSREES supports research, extension and education through peer-reviewed competitive programs, formula fund support at the universities and congressionally determined priority projects. I would like to describe each of these briefly and how we have implemented them.
The research and extension formulas provide critical support to the experiment stations and cooperative extension programs nationwide, and substantially leverage resources from State and local governments. In the case of extension, the leverage is three dollars of non-Federal assistance for every dollar of Federal funds, and in the case of research, it is almost four and a half dollars for each dollar of Federal assistance.
The National Research Initiative supports investigator-initiated mission and basic research and is actually the scientific seed corn for future investments in agricultural science.
The Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems provides support for projects which link research directly to the on-the-ground solutions for American farmers and consumers. As mandated in the 1998 research legislation, the program focuses on plant and animal genomics, food safety, biobased products and natural resource management.
The agency also administers a portfolio of higher education programs, the Fund for Rural America, the Small Business Innovation Grants Program, which helps with development of commercially viable agriculture based on research, and a number of other programs.
These programs, together with other targeted programs, really provide a mechanism for taking the most basic laboratory work and hypotheses that it is based on and making them useful to farmers, to other producers and processors and to consumers.
One example of the way these programs work together is in food safety. In fiscal year 1999, the National Research Initiative funded research on the ways that E. coli 0157:H7 are distributed and transferred through the environment. This work stimulated integrated research and extension projects which were funded in the fiscal year 2000, and finally in 2001, in cooperation with FDA and others, CSREES through the Initiative for Future Ag and Food Systems made a $1.3 million National Program Award that focused on how we can educate farmers and consumers about safe handling practices of fresh fruits and vegetables. As I mentioned, the programs work together to achieve results.
Page 636 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The 1998 Reform Act placed emphasis on stakeholder input as the basis for our programs, the integration of research, education and extension functions where that improves our delivery of programs, and greater importance on peer-reviewed competitive programs. The legislation authorized new programs in investments, including the initiative which I mentioned, and programs on integrated research, education and extension.
The initiative which the chairman mentioned provides an investment of $600 million in mandatory funding for integrated research, education and extension projects and represents one of the most significant and farsighted provisions of the 1998 legislation.
After a 1-year delay in the start of the program, last year we made our first awards under the IFAFS Program. The community of researchers and extensions professionals around the country responded to the opportunity for this program by submitting over 1,000 proposals, requesting $1.5 billion in funding. We were able to support 87 projects covering plant genomics, bioinformatics and a whole range of critical issues. This year we have received 770 proposals requesting $1.25 billion and are confident that this program will extend the usefulness of knowledge in agriculture. When paired with the integrated Research, Extension and Education Program established in the 1998 legislation, this provides an opportunity for the agency to develop a whole new way of operating.
I want to, as I close, mention that one of the advantages of the programs established in 1998 is they foster collaboration between USDA's research programs and those of the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, EPA, the Risk Management Agency and others. As a result of the flexibilities in this program, we are able to set common goals and ensure that programs are moving forward at the cutting edge of science.
Just last December, along with the Department of Energy, USDA and the National Science Foundation completed the mapping of Arabadopsis, the genome of Arabadopsis, and are nearing the completion of sequencing the rice genome.
Page 637 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are also working jointly with NASA on geospacial and precision technologies. It is through these collaborative efforts that the most payoff for American farmers and consumers is available.
The support of these programs by Congress has been essential to achieving the goals. As we continue to discuss the research and education and extension authorities of the new farm legislation, our agency and our university collaborators stand ready to provide this committee with any information that will be useful in your discussions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hefferan appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Dr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF FLOYD P. HORN, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Floyd Horn. I am the Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, and on behalf of ARS I am pleased to be here today to talk about how ARS coordinates its research programs and to discuss what ARS is doing for American agriculture.
While my written testimony primarily centers on how ARS responded to the directives in the 1996 farm bill and the 1998 Research Title, I would like here now to address some of the issues presented in your letter of invitation.
As USDA's in-house research agency, ARS conducts research to solve problems of a high national priority. ARS research impacts every American on a very basic level from the food we eat to the clothes we wear and the environment that we live in. USDA agencies like the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, the Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, and the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyard Administration, GIPSA, rely on ARS research to help create responsible science-based policy.
Page 638 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ARS serves a very unique role in providing objective scientific research that is separate and independent from regulatory influence. This independence is vital to maintaining the impartiality and the credibility that has long been associated with USDA research, and ARS is the recognized leader in agricultural science.
ARS also strives to serve the growing needs of an external customer base, including other Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and some components within the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior. For the most part, these relationships that are emerging are excellent, although we occasionally have some concerns because of differences in agency cultures. However, ARS is committed to supporting these agencies, also, and establishing research priorities for programs that impact agriculture and food.
ARS also enjoys an excellent working relationship with the National Science Foundation and other science-based organizations. For example, ARS also was a key participant in the complete genomic sequencing of the model plant Arabadopsis, along with the National Science Foundation and CSREES and the Department of Energy. We did this under the National Plant Genome Initiative. ARS is leading the transition of this effort to agriculturally important crops such as corn, wheat, rice and soybeans.
ARS collaborative efforts extend throughout the scientific community, and ARS scientists have close partnerships with their many university counterparts and in many cases share laboratory facilities on campuses. We have hundreds of formal research agreements with these institutions across the country.
Mr. Chairman, ARS has many exciting research projects that will ultimately benefit not only agriculture but all Americans. These research programs range from human nutrition and environmental science to genomics and biotechnology. However, since the time here is limited, I would now like to discuss some of the ways ARS is working to ensure all our customers and stakeholders have input and access to our research programs, and these were recommended strongly, to say the least, in the last farm bill.
Page 639 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The 1996 farm bill defined eight purposes of agricultural research, while the 1998 Research Title directed that research priorities should be established with input from our customers, stakeholders, and partners. In response to the latter, ARS held more than 40 national program workshops at locations across the country. These workshops brought ARS scientists and national program staffers together with our customers, over 3,000 of them. In addition to producers, representatives from all our customer groups attended the workshops. This included Federal and State partners, industry groups, businesses, nongovernmental organizations and university researchers. We made a special effort to invite small and disadvantaged producers to these gatherings.
Additionally, in recent months ARS has further expanded its outreach efforts to the historically underserved farm community. For instance, in November 2000, ARS held a national workshop in Laurel, MD, specifically aimed at these producers and called to better serving the historically underserved farm community. The workshop focused on identifying research issues of interest to this group, ways to transfer useful information and technology, and State and local organizations to include in regional outreach efforts. A diverse group of 51 customers and stakeholders from across the country attended, and their feedback was overwhelmingly positive. As a result of this national workshop, each of our regional area offices have developed action plans and strategies to address the specific needs of their local underserved farming communities.
During the next few weeks, additional joint outreach workshops will be held in Beltsville, MD; Memphis, TN; and Perry, GA. These efforts will help to forge new relationships between ARS scientists and these smaller underserved farmers and producers, and it is going to go a long way toward ensuring that ARS research and information reaches all of our customers.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I too will be happy to answer any questions that you or the other members of the committee may have regarding ARS research.
Page 640 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Dr. Lechtenberg.
STATEMENT OF VICTOR L. LECHTENBERG, CHAIR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS ADVISORY BOARD, WEST LAFAYETTE, IN
Mr. LECHTENBERG. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to share the views of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory board with regard to reauthorization. It has been my pleasure to chair this Board, and I might add that in my daytime job I serve as dean of Agriculture at Purdue University.
My comments reflect the input of many users of our agricultural research system. The Advisory Board was established in 1996. It seeks broad stakeholder input and provides advice to the Secretary on priorities, funding adequacy, and merit and relevancy review. Board members, while representing 30 constituent categories, have focused on the research and education needed to advance all of the food, agricultural and natural resource system, not just on what might best serve narrow interests of their specific constituency.
The Board holds two meetings each fiscal year. One is a National Stakeholder Symposium, and we also have special sessions to gather input on regional needs and to focus on unique and emerging scientific opportunities, and I would now like to comment on the five questions.
The first question dealt with current program areas. The Advisory Board believes that REE has been operating well, given the constraints of the operating budget, and specifically we would like to note that programs are tracking with USDA's 5-year strategic plan and that the Board's core priorities which we have recommended to the Secretary and to the Department are reflected in these programs. We note that the ARS peer review system is working well, that the IFAFS Program, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program, has been well managed and has shown that competitive grants can be as effective in funding mission-oriented research and extension programs as in funding basic research.
Page 641 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would also note that review for both scientific merit and relevance to important issues has been endorsed by USDA programs.
A concern we have is that American agriculture today is experiencing as much change as at any time in recent history. These changes include market structures, biotechnology, globalization, population shifts, environmental quality, animal care and perceptions of a number of issues by the public. USDA must have adequate human and financial resources to link across agencies, undertake new initiatives, strengthen research and education partnerships in order to help address these changes.
The Board's annual relevance and adequacy of funding review shows that REE funding is well below that needed to adequately address these challenges.
The second question dealt with programs which should be reauthorized. The Advisory Board recommends that the current operating authorities for CSREES, ARS Economic Research Service and Ag Statistics be reauthorized. In addition to these general authorities, we would also recommend that authorization include the following more specific items: The Initiative for Future Food and Ag Systems. We would also recommend that competition be open to all universities and agencies. Second, that the 2501 Small Farm Technical Assistance and Outreach Program for Minority and Underrepresented Farmers be reauthorized. And we believe that the Advisory Board should be reauthorized or that some entity similar to it should be formed to encourage stakeholder input and advise USDA. We would also encourage that merit review address both relevance of research to high priority issues and the quality of the science proposed to address those issues. And lastly, in that category we encourage that REE be the lead agency for research, education and outreach programs across all of USDA in order to better coordinate research and education activities.
With regard to improvements that could be made, the Board has three overarching recommendations: One, that USDA should lead the effort to double the funding of agricultural research over the next 5 years. This would be consistent with all input that the Board has received and with commitments of national CFAR and other organizations, including the Food and Society Initiative of the National Land Grant University Association.
Page 642 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, the USDA should work to raise the profile of agricultural research on the Federal science and technology agenda. Agriculture research must have an increasingly visible role in the Federal science enterprise to encourage the application of leading edge science and technology to our food, nutrition, forestry and natural resource enterprises.
And our third recommendation is to improve communications, public information and education about important agricultural issues. We believe the public and members of the scientific community and decision makers need to better understand the key issues facing U.S. agriculture in order to help meet the future challenges, and we have made a number of suggestions in this regard.
Programs that could be terminated. Decisions on program termination in our view involves both scientific and political criteria, and to the degree that funding mechanisms involve merit and relevance review, low priority programs are eliminated, refocused or completely redefined on an ongoing basis, and also programs that have low scientific merit are easily identified and eliminated or upgraded.
The Board's annual relevance and adequacy of funding review addresses agency budgets with respect to the five USDA/REE national more or less overarching goals, and these reviews have not focused on individual programs or projects.
When we look at coordination with programs outside of USDA, the Advisory Board encourages USDA to develop partnerships among agencies within the research, education and economics mission area, across the USDA mission areas and with other Federal science agencies and departments. And we see possibilities to, one, link agricultural education programs with the Department of Education, link agriculturally oriented environmental research and extension with EPA, integrate the outreach and technical assistance programs of NRCS and Rural Development much more closely with cooperative extension, and to engage with NASA on precision agriculture technologies.
Page 643 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would also encourage the continuing partnership with the National Science Foundation on basic genomics and proteomics research to advance agriculture and food system knowledge, to link with the National Institutes of Health on nutrition and health programs, and to coordinate disease and bioterrorism efforts with APHIS and the Department of Defense, and lastly to link the Department of Defense with the Department of Energy to address emerging priorities and biomaterials and biofuels. We are well aware that some collaborations among these agencies are already happening and we applaud that development. More are needed.
Long-term cooperative efforts across agencies will reduce duplications, help assure projects that are more targeted to specific informational needs of food, agriculture and natural resource systems, and enhance the overall benefit of research and education programs on behalf of all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and thank you and the subcommittee for your time and for the opportunity, and I will be happy to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lechtenberg appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Dr. Curl.
STATEMENT OF SAM CURL, DEAN AND DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, STILLWATER, OK
Mr. CURL. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the committee for the invitation to testify today. I am Sam Curl, dean and director of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Oklahoma State University. I am representing the Board on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, NASULGC.
I would like to target my verbal testimony to address two points. First, there needs to be a substantial increase in the Federal investment in agricultural research, extension and education, and, second, the science and education capacities of the land grant universities need to be harnessed to a much greater extent to effectively address the critical issues in the other titles of the farm bill, including international trade, rural development and conservation.
Page 644 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As others have testified, there is a widespread recognition of the need to increase investments in agricultural science and education. I have submitted a chart for the record that demonstrates the extent to which private sector funding for agricultural science and education has steadily increased, while public sector funding has decreased proportionately. This relative increase in private investments has recently led to questions about the independence and objectivity of research and outreach at the universities. Issues have arisen regarding intellectual property rights and public-private sector collaboration.
The single action that could best ensure sustained and robust autonomy by the universities would be to reinvigorate the Federal investment in agricultural research, education and extension. We seek to regain a balance between public and private sector funding for agricultural research and education.
The NASULGC Board on Agriculture appreciates and commends the broad spectrum of interest groups that have come together to form the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, National CFAR. We support their recommendation for a doubling of funding for agriculture research, extension and education in 5 years.
And now with respect to harnessing science and education to address the critical issues of the new century, we believe that a strong science and education system is essential to effectively deal with all of the policy issues of the next farm bill. Let me provide a few examples. First, providing stronger support for our agricultural producers and providing better support to farmers and ranchers, State universities and land grant colleges can research existing risk management tools and any new tools enabled by the new farm bill and educate our producers of farm and ranch products about their use.
Second, building international trade and market opportunities. Science and education are the foundation of new advanced technologies which open new opportunities in value-added agricultural products. Improving our competitiveness in value-added agriculture will yield profits and positive trade balances. Publicly funded research and development have provided the U.S. a global comparative advantage that we need to maintain.
Page 645 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A third example, conserving natural resources and enhancing the environment. Conserving natural resources and continuing to improve the stewardship of natural resource and the environment is a critical issue. USDA and EPA are focused on a new approach emphasizing results-based outcomes rather than regulating practices. Under their new approach we can collaborate with USDA/NRCS to provide needed cutting edge research and outreach programs.
Next, improving nutrition and health. Applying the knowledge system of our State universities and land grant colleges to nutrition can improve our Nation's health. On the research side, studies on nutraceuticals and improved nutritional content of food products can lead to better health and new market opportunities.
On the education side, extension staff educate participants about good nutrition as part of the Food Stamp Nutrition Educational Program. Universities can partner with USDA on enhanced nutrition research to improve understanding of consumer behavior.
And finally, revitalizing our communities. Universities and land grant colleges are well positioned to help rural and tribal communities develop strategies and programs based on good research and using effective extension programs to address their futures.
Research and education programs about potential new economic opportunities based on resources, bioenergy and biomaterials development and new business structures for value agriculture are urgently needed. New models of collaboration between universities, Federal laboratories and the private sector are needed to ensure that results of advanced discovery research are commercialized into new products and activities creating jobs, new business and economic growth.
Regarding the Research, Extension and Education Title specifically, we support the intent of Congress to facilitate greater cooperation between research and extension and between States. We support the intent of Congress to enrich meaningful stakeholder involvement and recommend the reauthorization of the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Advisory Board.
Page 646 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We endorse and recommend the continued authorization of a balanced portfolio of funding mechanisms, making it possible to address both long-term needs and short-term quick response issues.
In summary, we recommend tightly linking the research, education and extension system to the critical policy issues addressed throughout the farm bill. Increased investments in research, extension and education can most effectively address future challenges and add value by linking our knowledge system with action agencies in USDA. By doing so, the Federal agencies and the State and land grant universities can, as partners, better serve agriculture and our communities.
We look forward to working with the committee and your staff on details for these recommendations. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curl appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Dr. Phills.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY PHILLS, DEAN, SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE, FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY, TALLAHASSEE, FL
Mr. PHILLS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 1890 land grant universities. I am Bobby R. Phills, dean and director of Land Grant Programs for the College of Engineering Sciences and Technology at Florida A&M University. I also serve as chair of the 1890 Legislative Committee.
I would like to begin by associating myself with the testimony and remarks given by my colleague, Dr. Curl, who represents the Board on Agriculture.
Page 647 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are three key issues that I would like to address: One, the critical need for increased investments; two, equitable access; and three, appropriate funding mechanisms.
I am heartened by the recent calls to double the investment in agricultural research, extension and education. As we support critically needed investments in agricultural research, extension and teaching, it is essential that the specific funding needs facing the 1890 community also be addressed.
Chief among these is the establishment of an 1890 Land Grant Endowment Fund. While the 1890's are land grant universities, we did not receive funding benefits from the distribution of Federal lands as did our colleagues in the 1862s. Through the years the 1890 universities have struggled with inadequate funding resources to meet the especially challenging needs of underserved communities. The proposed endowment account could be utilized to help address historical inequities of resources and to allow our institutions the opportunity to build our capacity to effectively compete for other funding resources.
In the 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act, a 50 percent State matching requirement was established for the 1890's. Since passage of this act we have made some significant headway in securing State matching funds for our programs. We are now recommending increasing the State matching requirement to 100 percent. We request that this matching requirement be ramped up over the current requirement of 50 percent with an increase of 10 percent per year over the next 5 years.
We recognize that it would be harder for some of our 1890 universities to meet this matching requirement than others. We therefore ask that the Congress provide the Secretary of Agriculture greater flexibility in waiving an institution's matching requirements in response to a petition from said university.
We also recommend the reauthorization of the following 1890 programs: The 1890 Capacity Building Grant Program, with the provision to include 1890 extension as an eligible participant; the 1890 Facilities Program, recognizing that quality academic research and outreach programs demands that we have quality facilities for training and research efforts and technology transfer; the Socially Disadvantaged Program for Small and Limited Resource Farmers, commonly referred to as section 2501, and the base for one of the programs for research and extension.
Page 648 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We further recommend that the minimum funding level or flow for both of these programs be raised from 15 and 6 percent to 25 and 15 respectively. In addition to our needs for increased funding, the 1890's need equitable access to existing funding sources so as to become full and active participants in the Federal-State land grant partnership.
Currently, the 1890 universities are not eligible for formula funds targeted to forestry issues, the McIntyre-Stennis Program. Many of our institutions, however, abide in States where forestry is a major agriculture industry and these institutions have forestry and natural resource programs that are germane to the forestry industry. We recommend an expansion of authorized funding for McIntyre-Stennis and increasing eligible participants to include the 1890 universities.
We also welcome the return of West Virginia State College to the ranks of the 1890 land grant institutions. We recognize the need of West Virginia State to retain the base funding that was used to establish it. We also support their eligibility to participate in those programs for which 1890 land grant institutions and Tuskegee University are eligible. In each instance, however, we would hope that additional resources are made available to all of the 1890 land grants and Tuskegee, such that West Virginia State's participation does not put an additional and unintended burden on their colleagues.
We would like to commend the leadership of USDA/CSREES and the land grant community in the development of the new IFAFS Competitive Grants Program. The Department staff and others went the extra mile to make sure that our institutions were fully aware of the new program and gave us the opportunity to compete as equal partners in the process. We achieved some success. However, with enhanced support to increase our competitiveness, we will do even better in the future.
While we support competitive grants, we are concerned that some mistake the term ''competitive'' with the term ''quality''. The competitive grants process does provide a form of quality control for awarding funds for relatively short-term projects. However, many of the programs that we provide need to be sustained over time. Short-term competitively awarded projects do not adequately serve the longer term needs of the underserved population that we work with. Formula funding and endowment funds provide the necessary sustained funding that is required to truly build capacity.
Page 649 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify here today. We look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the land grant community as we move through the reauthorization of the farm bill. We urge you to use this moment, this opportunity, to invest in our 1890 land grant universities and in the future of our communities and the clientele we serve.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phills appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Dr. Abernathy.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. ABERNATHY, DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, LUBBOCK, TX
Mr. ABERNATHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing this opportunity for the American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable Resources, also known as AASCARR, to submit comments regarding agricultural research. My name is John Abernathy, and I serve as the dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.
AASCARR is a national organization comprised of more than 50 non-land grant universities across the country. AASCARR universities produce almost 20 percent of the U.S. agricultural graduates through agricultural and natural resources baccalaureate degree programs. Several of these universities also offer master of science degree programs and our college at Texas Tech offers a doctorate in six disciplinary areas. Collectively, the AASCARR universities account for more than 10 percent of the graduate degrees in agricultural sciences. None of these AASCARR schools are eligible for funding through the Morrill, Hatch or Smith-Lever Acts.
Page 650 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several key issues impacting agricultural research which I would like to address today include research partnerships, development of centers of expertise and the enhancement of competitive grants.
Regarding partnerships, AASCARR universities have created some opportunities to participate in substantial partnerships with other universities and Federal agencies, as well as with the private sector to utilize precious Federal and State funds more efficiently. Examples of these partnerships include:
Texas Tech University currently has 10 joint faculty positions with the agencies of the Texas A&M University System. These positions serve both institutions extremely well in providing research and technology for Texas clientele.
A key research relationship exists with USDA/ARS in plant stress research and with animal issues, which involves location of the Texas Tech faculty at ARS facilities and ARS scientists located in Texas Tech facilities.
The California State University Agricultural Research Initiative, ARI, is another example of leveraging resources to enhance multi-institutional agricultural research. Last year nearly $5 million in agricultural research projects were awarded to members of the California State University System engaged in agricultural research. The specific issues addressed in this program include agricultural literacy, biotechnology, food safety and processing.
The Consortium for Cattle Feeding and Environmental Studies involving Texas Tech University, West Texas A&M, USDA/ARS, Texas A&M System and New Mexico State University was formed to serve the cattle feeding industry of the Great Plains.
The Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research, CFAR, is a coalition between Southern Illinois University, University of Illinois, Illinois State University and West Illinois University to support research and outreach programs for Illinois food and agricultural systems.
Page 651 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Centers of expertise. Universities cannot be all things to all people. This is especially true of the AASCARR universities, with limited personnel and resources. However, there have been some opportunities for non-land grants to establish specific expertise centers. An example of such a center, which is located at Texas Tech, is the Cotton Economics Research Institute, which fosters a high level of professional expertise in cotton marketing for which other universities actively seek partnerships. Other examples of these centers of expertise that Texas Tech is currently building include a Center for Research on Animal Production, Food Safety and Innovation, and a Center for Cryobiology.
Enhancement of competitive grants. The AASCARR universities wish to join numerous other groups in stressing the need for a significant increase in agricultural research funds for all universities and research agencies. The need for this increased investment in agricultural research is clear. The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the economic status of U.S. agriculture, concerns about genetically modified organisms and the danger of BSE, or mad cow disease, to mention only a few issues, demonstrate the national need for increased investment and awareness of food safety and production issues. Further, an increase in investment in agricultural research is required to maintain American competitiveness in the global economy.
When research funds have been available on a competitive basis, as they are in the programs administered by the higher education program section of USDA, the results have been positive and AASCARR universities have fared very well.
The AASCARR universities have extensive histories of agricultural research, education and outreach as well as unique approaches and relationships with our communities and States. Yet there have been no Federal funds dedicated to the building capacity of these institutions. Not only do these institutions fill a unique role, but the sizeable number of the graduates they produce merits a Federal investment in this sector of agricultural education.
Page 652 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, building the capacities of these institutions strengthens the quality of learning throughout the agricultural education system, as many of the students who graduate from AASCARR universities seek advanced degrees in agriculture at larger universities.
Finally, I would like to address the composition of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board. This board, created by the 1996 farm bill, replaced three previous boards in which AASCARR had representation. Today AASCARR institutions request representation on this Board in order to assist the Board in developing a fuller understanding and more comprehensive approach to solving urgent agriculture issues.
The universities represented by AASCARR appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in this hearing and to provide testimony regarding our role in conducting research for the agricultural enterprise of the United States of America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abernathy appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Wolf.
STATEMENT OF TERRY WOLF, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COALITION FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, HOMER, IL
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the National Coalition of Food and Agricultural Research, National CFAR, to testify. I am Terry Wolf, a food grain, corn and soybean producer from Illinois and president of the National CFAR. Our coalition looks forward to working with this subcommittee as we seek to double Federal investment in food and agricultural research over the next 5 years.
Page 653 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We want to thank the members of this subcommittee for your support of food and agricultural research and education programs that have helped sustain the U.S. food and agricultural sector. We believe increased Federal support for food and agricultural research and education should be a key component of this committee's goal to develop sound food and agricultural policy.
National CFAR is a newly organized, broad-based stakeholder coalition of some 90 food, agricultural, nutrition, conservation and natural resource organizations. National CFAR recommends, as I said before, the doubling of Federal funding of food, nutrition, agriculture, natural resource, fiber research, extension and education programs during the next 5 years. This is to be a net additional funding on a continuing basis that compliments, not competes with or displaces, the existing portfolio of Federal programs of research and education.
The Federal Government should invest in food and agricultural research and education because the food and agricultural sector is strategically important to the United States, and the private sector lacks incentive to invest in research and education in a number of important areas. The food and agriculture sector contributes in many ways, provides food, creates jobs and income, reduces the trade deficit, contributes to the quality of life and bolsters national security. Public financed research should compliment private research by focusing in areas where the private sector does not have an incentive to invest, such as basic science and fundamental knowledge, environmental quality, food safety and security, understanding agricultural systems, economic opportunity and quality of life in farming and rural communities and public health.
Investments in food and agricultural research have returned enormous benefits to the American people. According to a recent study spanning a half a century and involving nearly 200 separate estimates, the average annual rate of return on public investments in food and agricultural research and extension was a large 81 percent return on investment.
Page 654 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need to double the food and agricultural research in the next 5 years. Many challenges remain. Federal funding has been essentially flat for two decades. The scientific base upon which advances have been built is at risk. Opportunities will be lost and goals not achieved unless there is increased support.
Federal investment in food and agricultural research has declined relative to all Federal research and relative to the agricultural research in the rest of the world. Federal funding of the food and agricultural research in USDA measured in real inflation adjusted dollars is less than it was in 1978. Public funding of agricultural research in the rest of the world during 1971 through 1993 increased nearly 30 percent faster than in the U.S. Currently we only invest about $1 of Federal funds for food and agricultural research for every $500 of consumer expenditures for food and fiber. These are not healthy trends.
Advances in science and technology are now opening the way to tremendous opportunities, such as the sequencing of the human, plant and animal genomes. Taking advantage of these unprecedented biotechnological advances will require significant increases in research funding. We have detailed what the challenges and opportunities are in our written testimony and due to time constraints we refer you to those.
National CFAR emphasizes the continuing need to build the capacity to do quality research and education. We must maintain a balanced portfolio of Federal research and education programs, including competitive grants, formula funds and intramural programs.
Our legislative recommendations are also included in our written testimony, and due to time constraints we will refer you to those there.
In conclusion, we hope that we have convinced you that the food and agriculture is an important sector that merits Federal attention and support. Food and agricultural research has paid huge dividends not just to farmers, but also to the Nation and the consumers around the world. There is an appropriate role for Federal support of research and education and the Federal investment in food and agricultural research should be doubled over the next 5 years.
Page 655 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views with you. We look forward to working with you and the members of the subcommittee in supporting the enhancement of Federal support for the food and agricultural research and education sector.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. And first before I ask my questions I would like to note something I realized that the panel is already aware of. You and your successors, or predecessors I should say, have been extremely successful and we live in a world where whether it is print or electronic media, the house fires and the disasters tend to get the attention first. The successful things occasionally go unnoticed and in many ways that is the ultimate compliment to any kind of a government program, the fact that it is ignored by the media, and unfortunately we have been excessively ignored down through the years.
My first question, though, goes to my friends from the university community, so to speak. The 1998 Reform Act emphasized of course leveraging private resources with Federal investments. Now unfortunately there are some activists out there who challenge the integrity of the results and the conclusions drawn by researchers who accept funding from the private sector.
Do you believe that the existing peer review procedures are adequate to ensure the credibility of such research? If so, how do we increase the public awareness and confidence in those scientific endeavors? Whoever.
Mr. CURL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our peer review system is very adequate and is working very well. That certainly does continue to be a concern that many people put forward. But I think the peer review system works well.
Mr. LUCAS. And it is a fair statement to say that the emphasis in the 1998 bill has been successful, it has helped bring more resources in that would have otherwise perhaps not been here, that this public-private partnership has accelerated research across the Board?
Page 656 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CURL. I certainly believe that is true. The university community is highly pleased, for example, in the way in which IFAFS is organized and implemented. As you know, it is designed to bring together our people and research and extension and teaching with people from agricultural industry, to really develop problems that tackle real world issues and develop some very practical meaningful solutions.
Mr. LUCAS. Dr. Lechtenberg, please.
Mr. LECHTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that same question?
Mr. LUCAS. Yes.
Mr. LECHTENBERG. From my perspective and I think in my view, the peer review system works very well to protect the interests that you raised the concern about, and I think that where we have had through IFAFS or through other programs that have encouraged public and private sector partnership and where there has been a peer review of those programs, I don't have any real serious concerns about compromising the public interest or the public good in those programs.
I think there is a concern that we need to be sensitive of in the university community where we may enter into partnerships with the private sector, where there is not a peer review of the program or of the outcome of those endeavors, and particularly, we need to be sensitive that the work, we always have the opportunity to publish that in scientific literature and to share information openly with our colleagues and other institutions to advance educational and research purposes. If that is done and if we focus on trying to get any intellectual property-related inventions into the hands of producers and processors in the food system, our managers as quickly as possible and as widely disbursed as possible, then I feel pretty comfortable. But I know it is pretty easy to compromise some of those goals when you are dealing with one-on-one relationships with the private sector.
Page 657 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Any other comments from the panel?
Mr. ABERNATHY. Mr. Chairman, I also think that our peer review process works very, very well. I think that we have to really look at the partnerships. I think that is vitally important to the future of agricultural research in this country as we go about doing our business. That brings a whole different level of expertise to the table that we can all share, and we also have to have the scientific credibility and ability to publish, et cetera, that has already been mentioned, but this is very, very important to our future. I think we have to move in that direction very strongly.
Ms. HEFFERAN. One of the things that we have done with the expanded portfolio of competitive programs is to assure that the peer review process includes farmers and producers and others who understand the relevance of the work as well as the scientific merit. That in combination with the realization that most discovery, whether it is in agriculture or in medicine or any other field of science, comes about because of multiple activities, multiple projects, funding that is available through States, through the Federal system and in some cases the private system, and scientists really need to have access to resources that come from all of those sources to make credible discovery. So I think expanding the peer review system to include relevance as well as merit and including and understanding that lots of sources are needed for good research is critical to that effort.
Mr. LUCAS. My time has expired. Yes.
Mr. PHILLS. I too support the peer review system. I think it has worked very well in many cases. I remind you, however, that as a general rule they are looking for the best possibilities of research funding, and that is in essence what it should be on the one hand. However, when we look at the institutions that I represent, in many cases they are not at the level of competitiveness that would make them fair competitors, and so I therefore urge Congress to take that into consideration.
Page 658 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. My time having expired, I believe we will turn to Mr. Dooley and after Mr. Dooley's questions we will probably recess temporarily for a vote on the floor.
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess in terms of the prioritization, when we had the thousand proposals, we allocated 84, I guess, in the last year. How do we prioritize that, in terms of is there consideration to the level of the private match? Is it subject to a specific policy objective that was defined prior to the sub mix of an application? I just was curious about how that was working.
Ms. HEFFERAN. In the process of reviewing the 1,000 applications we received, we first and foremost assured that those which we looked at for funding were meritorious scientifically, but we had about 30 percent of the projects which were rated as very meritorious and highly fundable and ended up funding only 8.7 percent. We had developed an RFP which went out describing the broad program goals, and so the alignment of the proposal to the program goals was certainly a criteria that was used, and also, the relevance of the project to the constituent groups that it was intended to serve was very relevant to the ultimate decisions on funding. But essentially we ended up funding those which were the very highest in merit and which served those programs which were most relevant, not only to requests for proposals, but by virtue of the way the proposal was developed were linked to the constituent groups they were attempting to serve.
Mr. DOOLEY. Dr. Lechtenberg, in your statement you say the Board also strongly recommends that there be open competition across the broad science arena. Are you inferring that we have some restrictions now that we need to expand?
Mr. LECHTENBERG. Congressman, we were referring specifically to the Initiative for Future Ag and Food Systems, and initially there were some restrictions, and I think there ended up being a few restrictions in terms of the competition in that program, and we would like to see if there is going to be a competition to achieve the program goals that all institutions that have the capacity to do so would have that opportunity.
Page 659 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLEY. And I guess I need to understand better, what restrictions are we talking about now? And Dr. Hefferan?
Ms. HEFFERAN. Sure. This last year the appropriators included language which restricted the Initiative for Future Ag and Food Systems initially to the land grant university system. That was ultimately expanded to include baccalaureate degree granting institutions with capacity in agriculture. I should say that eliminate d a number of private and other Federal agencies, including the Agricultural Research Service, from directly competing for the funds.
In our other major competitive program, the National Research Initiative, the advantage of that program for not only delivering programs but collaborating with other agencies is that it is open to all who have capacity to do research, and I think what Dr. Lechtenberg is referring to is that the programs need to be open as broadly as possible to draw the very best scientists from both within and outside government.
Mr. DOOLEY. Well, that was certainly our intent when we drafted the 1998 proposal, is that in recognition that a lot of the advances we could see even in the genomics area, that expertise doesn't necessarily reside in the land grants or other traditionally more agriculturally oriented institutions, and so it was actually the appropriations bill which put some restrictions on it.
Ms. HEFFERAN. That is correct.
Mr. DOOLEY. That we need to correct then. I appreciate that and the reason I am focusing on the initiative is because I think that if we are going to go out and double the funding this is an area where I contend we ought to be trying to channel most of the funding, and I guess, Dr. Curl, you say we recommend an expansion and further refining of the initiative. I guess, what is that refinement? Is it similar to what we have just heard or do you have some other ideas?
Page 660 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CURL. I would say so. Yes, that is really what it refers to, the same kinds of possible restrictions that Dr. Lechtenberg alluded to.
Mr. DOOLEY. Great. The only closing comment I would have is I just encourage all of you to encourage your professors and other people associated with the research institutions to contact Members of Congress to support this doubling of the budget for agricultural research. It is absolutely critical that you folks get engaged and communicate the need for us to move forward on this.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Baldacci.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing and the panel for giving very thoughtful testimony. I want to focus in one particular area right now. Dr. Horn, we are very pleased with the interests that the Agricultural Research Service has shown in conducting cold water aquaculture research in Maine, and we are looking forward to having our scientists in Maine here. Are you having any trouble recruiting those scientists?
Mr. HORN. Actually we have considerable experience in the past few years recruiting scientists. We actually at one point in time dropped down to about 1,650 scientists in the agency intramural full-time scientists, and we now are at 2,100 based on increasing confidence and resources from the Congress, and we have done very well. We think we are getting the best and the brightest, but there is a serious flaw in the system in that other agencies of government, particularly the Health and Human Services agencies, FDA and NIH, have a special authority for senior research scientists called the Senior Research Scientist Service that allows them to pay something in the order of $40,000 more a year for senior scientists. And so I would say we are doing fine with regard to younger scientists or new scientists, but we do have this one problem with recruiting leadership and seasoned scientists, and we are in fact and have been for some time seeking authority similar to those that are used by NIH, the National Science Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration who have actually taken people from us to implement the Senior Scientist Service in ARS, and it would also apply to the Forest Service.
Page 661 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BALDACCI. Dr. Horn, when we did the Freedom to Farm in 1996, it was very important that we beefed up the Research Title because it was supposed to form a safety net beneath the producers and ranchers and others, and I am kind of disappointed to hear that others are sort of cherry picking the scientists that are there at ARS, and maybe if you could submit some written examples of the authority that the other agencies have so that we could review that, that would be very helpful.
Mr. HORN. We would be glad to do that.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. And with that I believe we will ask the indulgence of the witnesses to recess for a few minutes to conclude this vote and then we will return.
[Recess]
Mr. LUCAS. The subcommittee will reconvene. The primary responsibility of course of Members of Congress is to cast those votes on behalf of our constituents, and while it does drive the committee hearing process crazy sometimes, that is the first and foremost obligation and I appreciate your patience with that, and now we turn to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Osborne, for his questions.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the members of the panel for coming this morning. I guess one thing I am interested in and I have not addressed this to any particular person, but I am concerned about duplication of effort, and obviously we don't have enough dollars in research. I am a great believer in agricultural research and how important it is. It is probably the one edge we have globally is technology, and yet at the same time I am really concerned that our dollars are spent wisely. So maybe, Dr. Lechtenberg, Dr. Horn, I know those are issues that you might look at and anybody else, but if you do have a program that is redundant, if it isn't accomplishing a whole lot or if it is being duplicated, how do you get rid of it and how do you prioritize what is important?
Page 662 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LECHTENBERG. Congressman, let me offer a couple thoughts. One of the advantages, I think, of having a growing or a larger proportion of the research and education funding, the funds being distributed under some sort of a mechanism of peer review or relevancy and merit review, is that you can bring coordination of two programs certainly across State boundaries or across even regional areas and involve people and investigators from multiple universities. So that is one way to identify and deal with the duplication issue.
There is another element on, quote, duplication that I think is important, and particularly when one is dealing with the crops-related research and production issues that are tied environmentally or geographically to soil conditions or environmental conditions, while we don't want to have duplication of effort directly, it is also true that some of the research that we do needs to be tailored to the environmental conditions of particular States or vocations or regions within the State. For example, within Indiana we have eight locations around the State of Indiana where we are doing research, some of which looks like a duplicate of what is happening at other locations, but it is on a different soil type. It is under a different set of environmental conditions, and it is very difficult and risky to take work that may work very well on dark prairie soils of West Lafayette, IN and transport that finding to southeastern Indiana on low organic matter and much more marginal kinds of soils.
So to the casual observer some of what looks like duplication may in fact be pretty well justified, but we certainly need to be vigilant of those issues and continue to track and monitor the things that we are doing.
Mr. HORN. And I would like to add to that that we actually do go to extraordinary lengths. My entire verbal testimony was dedicated to coordination and collaboration, and in that testimony I mentioned the participation of university scientists in our national program reviews, of which there have been many and will be many more. We have plenty to do without any redundancy whatsoever.
Page 663 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also mention that we are for the most part all affected by a single mission area here within the Department of Agriculture, and one very important concept is that research is cross-cutting across all of the action and regulatory agencies of the Department, but putting us in the single mission area gives us a way to communicate back and forth. For instance, you would find ARS scientists sitting on the National Research Initiative panels evaluating for the most part land grant university submissions, and you would find, as I indicated, university people involved in our evaluations.
There is one area of activity that is evolving that we have to worry about at this end, and the Department of Energy, for instance, is taking much more interest in agricultural research in their efforts to sustain their infrastructure and use DOE resources for a broader set of issues. They are frequently faced with the request to do agricultural research without understanding the history of agricultural research, and so we have interdepartmental committees that deal with that set of issues, and I think we are doing better all the time, but it is a concern of ours as well.
Mr. ABERNATHY. Mr. Congressman, I would also like to address that and might add one other point, too, that if you involve the constituents in the research agenda across the State or across this country, the commodity organizations, the leaderships of those kinds of people, a lot of times that really cuts down on the perception that there is duplication or the misconception that there is duplication, and in Texas I think we use that very effectively to have producer groups, producer organizations that are part of a lot of those commodity organization programs, be it cotton or corn or sorghum or whatever. That works very well.
Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have used up my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. To follow along for a moment on the concept of public perception and harking back to my question about the concerns among the general public and most certainly some activists about where your dollars come from and how that might potentially impact results of your research, I have great confidence, yes, in the peer review process being a product of one of your institutions. How do you, and I address this to the whole panel, how do we publicize, how do we educate, how do we get across to the public you think the nature of this peer review process in such a way that they will understand so that we can lift the confidence of the whole country? Because ultimately it is that consumer out there, it is that member of the general public who reads a paragraph or catches a snippet on TV who has concerns about your work and brings it into question. How do we—''restore'' may not be the phrase—but how do we enhance their confidence in the good work you are doing?
Page 664 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HEFFERAN. One of the provisions in the 1998 legislation which certainly the Agriculture Research Service as well as our agency has taken very much to heart is the stakeholder input process, and that includes not only involving citizens in the planning for what you will do, but how you will do it, and as we have worked with citizens, beginning with the Advisory Board and going to more specific groups, it has been very clear that as they have some say in how we process and how we go through our processes they are much more committed and understanding of the programs.
I think the second factor is that through the Cooperative Extension System we have a locally driven priority setting process who understands how we manage programs and the value of having a merit-based system and a peer review system. That system is apparent not only in the allocation of funds at the Federal level, but also at the local level. I would venture to say that last year our agency used in excess of 2000 merit and peer reviewers for our direct agency programs, and I would suggest that probably the universities in total used another 10 times as many as that in total to address issues.
So I think involvement with citizens, not just on the review side but the planning for what and how you will do it is one way to get people fully engaged and supportive of the methods that we use.
Mr. CURL. This is kind of a simple response, Mr. Congressman, but I think through the things we say and do at my institution, especially the part of the division of the institution that I am responsible for, through the things we say and do, we take great care to try to make ourselves as believable as possible to the people in the State, and many times the things that we say or the results of a particular project might not be what is most popular with many people, and making those kinds of results known as well as the ones that are popular I think helps to increase our credibility.
And the point was made by a couple of our panelists about work with advisory committees, with people in industry, bringing them in, making them a part of what we do. I think that really helps to build credibility by building this closer tie between ourselves and people in the agriculture industry, so that they really can vouch for us to other people and what these people are doing is really straight up.
Page 665 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. And I can see where there may well not be time in this calendar year, but this may be a topic where this subcommittee needs to at some point in time in the future focus more attention to be able to share that with the Nation, too.
Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. I think it is important that we include in this discussion, particularly if we are talking about public perception at large, the business of technology transfer, and in the Agriculture Research Service we enter into many cooperative research and development agreements with the private sector. When those lead to a controversial product, that is when public perceptions seems to solidify around something less than ideal for research, and we are required to participate in these agreements in order to commercialize Federal technologies that are developed in Federal laboratories, required by law. However, we are not very good at pointing out the purpose of our participation is to assure that we consider the public interest, and the public interest is our patenting of that technology, our insistence that it be broadly licensed to the companies that want it as opposed to secreted by a particular company, and the public interest is indeed well-served, but we don't do the job we could in selling that concept.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to relate some of the experience we have had in Illinois with our Illinois CFAR effort. We have had much greater stakeholder participation in setting objectives and goals and objectives and evaluating those and sitting in on reviews. This has been one of our concerns and I think it has really added to the process. I think USDA has been implementing these types of programs, trying to get more stakeholder input, and I think that is very important.
I do think there is a difference between duplication and verification and some of the issues that we have addressed in the last few years. It has been good to have some verification of outcomes, that we are challenged by some groups, and the more you get some verification from different sectors, from different parts, it has really been helpful as well.
Page 666 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. I have one more question, and this might be directed to the entire panel, and it is a classic example of asking you to slide out onto thin ice. Various witnesses have lauded initiatives like the Future Agriculture and Food Systems proposal and have requested its reauthorization, and that is one of those short-term entitlement programs, but the question of how we fund this research that is so important to the country, whether we continue down the primarily discretionary path or whether we attempt to use mandatory funding. As I alluded to in my opening comments, we have only had limited success in using mandatory funds because our dear friends over on the appropriations side tend to—where we write a farm bill every 3 or 5 or 7 years and they tend to rewrite the farm bill every year.
Could you offer me your insights as to how it affects your ability to plan and to do research over the long haul? Is it better that we continue to try and work on a hand-to-mouth, year-to-year basis? Is it meritorious that we pursue the mandatory funding since that generally allows for a more consistent stream? Who would be brave and step out onto this ice and offer some insights?
Ms. HEFFERAN. Let me say that there are several of the programs that you have authorized over the year where there is multiyear authority for the funding. That is a very valuable management tool. Research and education and extension are not things that happen on a yearly basis. They are a long-term kind of investment with long-term outcomes and long-term planning, and so insofar as lengthening the term of the programs, it is very valuable in terms of managing programs in a way that is cost effective to the institutions that are submitting proposals as well as the organization.
I don't have any great insights into this discretionary-mandatory process. I will tell you that the challenge that we have had over the last few years within CSREES of managing a program that has not been assured on the appropriations side has been one that we have met by integrating the program into our ongoing business more than we have with other programs, and that actually has been a positive outcome that has meant to scientists who work on other programs in the agency, extension folks who work on programs that are funded through the formula-based programs or the National Research Initiative we called upon to work on the IFAFS program, and that has had a very positive effect on reducing potential duplication and assuring that the programs are well-coordinated.
Page 667 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That doesn't address what form of funding is most effective, but it does suggest that sometimes there are positive unpredictable outcomes from the uncertainty that is associated with programs. The best thing that you could do, I think, though, is to look at programs and see if multiyear authority would improve the management and reduce the cost to the institutions participating.
Mr. CURL. Mr. Chairman, as one of the spokesman here for universities, I would say that our concern is that critical issues are addressed and needed projects are funded. Whether the increased funding we are seeking comes from discretionary funding or from mandatory accounts is really immaterial.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add something relative to the mode of funding, and we have been saying this actually for some time, not always. There were arguments over the years as to the best mode of funding agricultural research, but I believe we can say with some assurances now that it is nice to have a portfolio that has different modes of funding in it for different reasons. Clearly, competitive grants funding does help to not only educate the next generation of scientists, but also bring some really cutting edge scientists and new ideas to the fore.
By the same token, if you need a rapid response in support of the action and regulatory agencies coming from a solid core of scientists, the appropriated funds that go to Agricultural Research Service are quite useful, and clearly if we are going to espouse national programs, then the input that is provided by way of formula funds by the experiment station directors at universities can be crucial. So I believe, and I believe we have a number of people who have said for several years now, that this portfolio is perhaps not absolutely without fault but very, very important as to how the country goes about establishing its priorities and funding its work.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think it is really important we have the confidence in the system that we are going to have not only adequate funding but a growing investment in the food and agricultural sector because many of the challenges we have to address take a commitment that is more than 1 year, that we have heard before we have to build capacity. In some cases it has been depleted. It is a challenge to compete with the universities and USDA with the private sector as well as other agencies because of the salary levels, but we really need, I think, the confidence in the system that we are going to be sustaining this and growing this over time so we can retain this capacity and build this capacity and take on some of the key challenges out here that are just not short term but longer term challenges.
Page 668 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank the panel for their testimony. Is there anything that we can learn from the process by which Federal funds are placed into research in basic science and health. Do they do it better or is it different, and just kind of general thoughts about what is out there and is there competition for attracting scientists in agriculture who can because of the Federal funding of NIH, for example, can better serve or have more access to Federal dollars by working in areas of research related to health? Any thoughts about that?
Mr. LECHTENBERG. Congressman, let me offer a couple of observations. I think one of the shortcomings we face in USDA with respect to research funding is that the total level of funding, as has been pointed out by several folks, is well below what is really needed to address some of the challenges and opportunities, and when you are trying to—in my case trying to recruit the very best and brightest minds to engage in agricultural research and when they look at where the sources of funding are to do research, increasingly they are attracted to NIH or to the National Science Foundation portfolios because there is simply a better chance of being successful because of the higher level of funding.
So I am finding that a growing proportion of my agriculture research investigators, research scientists, are seeking funding from NIH and from the National Science Foundation, which we applaud.
But I would be even more happy if they were able to find that same level of support and funding through USDA and be working on the problems they are addressing from the standpoint of best addressing agricultural questions.
Mr. MORAN. It is not an issue of the process by which one competes, it is more access to the volume of——
Mr. LECHTENBERG. In my view, it is more the level of funding. The competitively-awarded grant system that USDA has in place through the National Research Initiative and the IFUS program works very well and is comparable. It has scientific quality comparable to other agencies.
Page 669 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Anyone else?
Mr. HORN. I would agree. If we look just at the increases in the past several years, although we have done reasonably well, not as well as some of the other agencies that you have mentioned.
I also said some things relative to authorities to hire senior scientists in a new senior scientist service, in response to the congressman's question earlier that I hope you will take a look at.
I think, in addition to that, it is important to know that we do deal with health in the agricultural research service. We have the human nutrition research centers. We have about $75 million there dedicated to prevention of disease, and it is remarkable the health care costs that could be saved and the human suffering that could be avoided through better nutrition. All sorts of diseases, such as heart disease, cataracts, could be avoided through improved nutrition, not to mention obesity.
So there are opportunities for us to use the same mechanisms they have used to strengthen our program.
Mr. MORAN. Is there any access of NIH funds for nutrition research across the universities, agricultural research universities?
Mr. HORN. Yes.
Ms. HEFFERAN. In fact, the National Institutes of Health are the primary funder of nutrition research at the universities.
One of the strategies we have taken as a substantially smaller player than NIH in funding for biological sciences in general is to encourage more collaborative work, both on campus and through some joint programs.
The more fundamental the science, the less the distinction between whether you are working in health or in agriculture. There have been scientists who have started out in the health care system who have discovered agriculture through collaboration.
Page 670 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think Dr. Lechtenberg has really hit the major point. The prospects for substantial funding over the term of your career are so much greater in the health care areas that it is difficult to not only attract, but sustain the kinds of scientific interest in agriculture that we would like to see.
I think the collaborations have been sufficiently— just last week in Science Magazine, there was a major article about microbial genomics, and talks about the collaboration between USDA and other Federal agencies on trying to understand the genomics of microbes, and the broad applicability across both health and agriculture to that.
That certainly does expand interest, but the long-term funding prospects are very different.
Mr. MORAN. NIH has received significant political and public support, and I think we want—of which I am one of the members who believe that funding is awfully important.
It is a good reminder to me, as I listened to the panel this morning, that there are a number of areas in which research dollars are important.
I have no other questions. The chairman is reining me in, reminding me of that red light.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Osborne, any more questions?
Mr. OSBORNE. Yes, I have one more. This may be a little from left field.
At one time we thought the ethanol debate was over with the California waiver, and I don't think it is. I am interested if any of you have got any special expertise in biofuels, ethanol, diesel, as to exactly what your perception is in terms of greenhouse emissions, effectiveness in terms of burn rates and so on.
Page 671 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, I realize that this is a specific question, but it is something that is going to be very important, I think, to the Agriculture Committee and to agriculture.
Mr. HORN. There is a great deal of work on the development, the production of biomass to cut production costs, which, of course, in the end results in a more profitable product, ethanol or biodiesel or whatever. In addition to that, we have done a lot of work on coal products that help the profitability of this operation.
We have taken a look at the impact of this on the creation of wealth, the creation of jobs and the like. We are getting closer all the time. At the moment, it takes about seven-tenths of a gallon of ethanol to produce a gallon of biofuel, and that is better than it has been.
We are actually quite enthusiastic about this, therefore, and that is reflected in this year's budget request. We are asking for major increases in biofuels. We see really otherwise quite useless things, switchgrass and the like, as having tremendous potential in the production of biofuels, in addition to corn and a lot of grain crops that could at times be in excess.
Mr. OSBORNE. A follow-up question. Sometimes we get conflicting data on efficiency in terms of reducing smog and reducing undesirable emissions. There are going to be two sides presented.
Maybe this is not the time or place, but I would be very pleased to get whatever research you have and any comments you have now as to what you believe the data really shows.
Mr. HORN. We would be glad to provide that. You may have heard—it got considerable notoriety a few weeks ago—that the Agriculture Research Service biodiesel team won the Closing-the-Circle award, which is a government award to increase efficiency and reduce waste.
Page 672 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At Beltsville, Maryland, and at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, we have a program that has actually put vehicles on the highway that are far less polluting and just as efficient as fossil fuel-burning vehicles. We actually have a bus that has soybeans painted on the side. We can tell you how many gallons per acre and miles per acre we are achieving, and so forth. We would be glad to provide that.
Mr. OSBORNE. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Any questions, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. No, thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. No, sir.
Mr. LUCAS. One last question for the panel and we will adjourn.
As you have noted, one of the big topics that this subcommittee has jurisdiction over is over conservation. Potentially one of the greatest new increases in revenue being spent may well occur in that area.
Within the conservation policies of the last, now almost 20 years, we have idled 10 percent of our farmland. Some in this body talk about idling 15 percent. There are programs where we are spending substantial amounts of resources per acre, such as wetlands. We are entering into 10-year and 15-year and some talk about perpetuity agreements.
All of those efforts have a huge potential long-term impact on rural America and on our agricultural resources. I think I just want to offer for a note to this panel that, as a subcommittee, we may well be calling upon you for your assistance in doing the kind of research and gathering the sort of information about what the true long-course effect will potentially be of these things in this country. So stand ready to marshall your resources to look at those areas in the very near future.
Page 673 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By the expression on your faces, I can tell you have already been doing research on virtually all of those areas to begin with. But you will be called upon in a greater degree.
Without objection, the record of today's hearing remaining open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplemental responses of witnesses to any questions posed by the panel.
With that, this meeting of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Testimony of Colien Hefferan
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. My name is Colien Hefferan, and I am the Administrator of USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. CSREES is the agency of USDA which engages the national university-based agricultural knowledge system to develop science-based solutions and technologies to help farmers and rural communities remain productive and profitable in the face of considerable challenges. I am here today to report on the research, extension and education programs administered by the CSREES as guidance to the subcommittee's preparation for the next farm bill.
I am pleased to report to you today that in the three years since Congress passed the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 that CSREES has been successful in its mission to advance knowledge that has resulted in improvements in all aspects of agriculture. Agriculture is a knowledge-based, global enterprise sustained by the innovation of scientists and educators and the hard work of farmers and ranchers and publicly-supported research is a key component of that innovation. It is difficult to think of an element of the food and agriculture system that is not directly impacted by the research, education and extension system. When confronting issues as diverse as financial risk management, animal disease , nutrient management, climate change and economic development, producers, consumers and policy-makers require cutting edge scientific and educational techniques to develop appropriate and effective solutions. Effectively dealing with challenges such as Foot and Mouth Disease, food safety and agricultural resource conservation would be impossible without the nationwide network of experiment stations, extension services and universities dedicated to the advancement of agricultural sciences.
Page 674 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Likewise, the technological change sweeping across agriculture associated with information technology, precision farming, genomic sequencing and development of genetically engineered crops are all rooted in research, extension and education programs supported by Federal, state and local governments.
Current Status of Programs
The United States will need the most talented scientists and educators to work on current and future challenges in order to maintain its leadership position in global agriculture. CSREES accomplishes its mission by supporting research, education and extension activities through peer-reviewed competitive grant programs, formula fund support at the land-grant universities, and Congressionally determined priority projects. I would like to briefly describe how each of these components fits into the continuum of the agricultural knowledge system.
The research and extension formula fund programs provide critical support to the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative Extension Systems nationwide at Land-Grant Universities, and substantially leverage additional resources from state and local governments.
The National Research Initiative (NRI) supports investigator-initiated basic and mission-focused research related to agricultural animal, plant, environmental and economic systems. The basic understanding of biological systems generated through the NRI underlies the development of future technological innovations.
The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and the Integrated Research, Education and Extension Program provide support for projects which combine the functions of research, education and extension activities to link research directly to on-the-ground solutions for American farmers and consumers. These programs address critical issues such as plant and animal genomics, food safety, biobased products and natural resource management.
Page 675 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Higher Education Program portfolio builds educational capacity to train and educate future food and agricultural scientists. These programs contribute to innovations in curricula, recruiting, and internationalization of teaching programs and are especially important for improving the education and extension capabilities at the historically Black, tribal and Hispanic-serving institutions.
The Fund for Rural America provides key resources for the development of research, education and extension applications which address critical issues of rural economic development, human capacity building and market development.
Finally, the Small Business Innovation Research Grants Program supports the development of commercially viable agricultural technologies utilizing results of agricultural research.
These programs, together with targeted, national programs such as Integrated Pest Management and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, and Congressional priority projects form a portfolio of work that translates research from the most basic of laboratory hypotheses all the way down to the dinner plate.
One example of how these programs all work together is food safety. In fiscal year 1999 the NRI funded research into the ways that E. coli 0157:H7 is distributed and transferred through the environment. This work stimulated integrated research and extension projects to reduce the risk of spreading the organism which were funded in fiscal year 2000. Taking the results of this knowledge even further, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration, we are funding a $1.3 million national program through the Integrated Research, Education and Extension Grant Program to educate farm-workers and consumers about safe handling practices for fresh fruits and vegetables with the goal of further reducing the incidence of microbial-based illnesses.
The programs I just described form the framework under which CSREES has been operating since passage of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA). This Act placed a higher emphasis on stakeholder input, and integration of research, extension and education functions, with a greater importance on competition in the delivery of CSREES programs. AREERA also authorized new programs and investments in agricultural research, including the Integrated Research, Extension and Education program and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
Page 676 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) and the investment of $600 million in mandatory funding for integrated research, education and extension projects represents one of the most significant and far-sighted provisions of AREERA. With the support of many members of this committee, and following a 1-year delay in implementation mandated through appropriations action, CSREES first requested and awarded proposals under IFAFS during fiscal year 2000. The research, education and extension community responded by submitting nearly 1000 proposals requesting $1.5 billion in support. After reviewing the proposals we awarded 87 grants covering topics ranging from plant genomics and bioinformatics, the development of biobased oils and lubricants, management techniques for private forest owners and research related to diets and nutrition. The program focused on research that was cutting-edge, multi-institutional and directly linked to producer or consumer issues through extension or education programs. Included in the funded projects were the following:
Several projects to develop biobased products such as solvents, greases and latex substitutes and projects examining more efficient methods for converting biomass to fuels.
A consortium of Texas, Florida and California institutions to reduce the risk of microbial contamination of fresh fruits and vegetables through a combination of basic research, extension and farm-worker education.
A consortium of the University of Tennessee and Purdue to develop natural resource management solutions for private forest owners.
Two consortia to develop education material for producers and consumers about the application of agricultural biotechnology. One of these was a consortium of 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and focused on delivering biotechnology applications to under-served farm communities.
CSREES is currently reviewing proposals for the FY 2001 IFAFS competition. This year, the IFAFS program received 770 proposals requesting nearly $1.25 billion in support. In the two years of its operation the IFAFS program has become an important feature of the agricultural research, extension and education community. When paired with the new Integrated Research, Education and Extension Program, IFAFS represents a fundamental shift in how CSREES manages its program portfolio and in how university scientists approach the development and dissemination of new research results.
Page 677 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the strengths of the agricultural knowledge system as it exists today is the way that different levels of government cooperate and leverage funds to the benefit of the overall system. A relatively small Federal investment in research and extension formula funds leverages a tremendous amount of non-Federal funds for these activities. Focused multi-state and regional research projects, supported by both formula funds and competitive grants, are being established to address complex problems. Funds provided to agricultural research, extension and education are used in a way that maximizes impact and minimizes duplication of effort.
Collaboration with other Federal science agencies is becoming a major mode of operating many CSREES competitive programs. We have strong collaborative efforts with the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the area of genomics research. Our scientific staff meets regularly with NSF staff to set joint program goals and to ensure that our genomics programs are complimentary. Just last December the two agencies, along with the Department of Energy announced the completion of the jointly supported Arabadopsis Genome Sequencing Program and we are nearing completion of the joint rice sequencing project as well. CSREES and NSF are currently supporting a joint program to support the rapidly expanding field of microbial genomics. CSREES supports this joint program as one component of IFAFS.
In cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), IFAFS will fund projects to help producers adopt geospacial and precision technologies. We work jointly with USDA's Risk Management Agency to deliver risk management education to producers across the country. We work closely with the Food and Drug Administration and the Agricultural Research Service to set priorities for food safety research and to deliver public education. Finally we are working with National Institute for Standards and Technology and the Environmental Protection Agency to develop standards for assessing the environmental benefits of biobased products. These collaborations allow USDA to leverage the resources of other agencies to address issues of concern to agriculture through the multi-disciplinary capacity of America's universities and to prevent duplication of programs. The Congressional support of the NRI and IFAFS has been crucial to the development and the success of these collaborations.
Page 678 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These programs we are discussing today affect every other element of the farm bill, but they have their basis in the authorizations you will consider as part of the research title. CSREES and our university collaborators stand ready to assist the subcommittee as they craft the new research, extension and education title and the farm bill as a whole.
Statement of Bobby R. Phills
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, on behalf of Dr. Clinton Bristow, President of Alcorn State University and Chair, Council of 1890 Presidents and Chancellors, and the entire 1890 Land-Grant Community, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am Bobby R. Phills, Dean and Director for Land-Grant Programs, College of Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture at Florida A&M University. I serve as Chair of the 1890 Legislative Committee.
I would like to begin by associating myself with the testimony and remarks of my colleague, Dr. Sam Curl, who represents the Board on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). The 1890's are members of the Board on Agriculture and we have played an active role in the development of the Board's policy recommendations. We endorse Dr. Curl's statements regarding funding needs and the need to better integrate science and education programs into all of the action and policy activities of the Department. We also recognize the importance of our international Land-Grant programs in research, academics and extension and urge continued support for these programs as they help to maintain the competitiveness of American agriculture. Building on Dr. Curl's testimony, I will focus on some additional issues of concern specific to the 1890's in the new farm bill rewrite legislation.
Key Issues for the 1890's
There are three key issues that I would like to address:
Page 679 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(1) The critical need for increased investments;
(2) Equitable access; and
(3) Appropriate funding mechanisms.
THE CRITICAL NEED FOR INCREASED INVESTMENTS
I am heartened by the recent calls to double the investment in agricultural research, extension and education. It is remarkable that so many diverse interests are coming together with an understanding of an urgent need to reinvest in the science and education base serving our farmers and our communities. The 1890 universities look forward to working with all of the farm and interest groups who are working to enhance our abilities to serve their needs. As we support critically needed investments in agricultural research, extension and teaching, it is essential that the specific funding needs facing the 1890 community also be addressed. At this time, I would like to convey some of our specific recommendations to meet the unique needs of the 1890's and the communities that we serve.
Establish an 1890 Land-Grant Endowment fund. We recommend establishing an 1890 Land-Grant Endowment fund at a funding level of not less than $20 million per year. The current legislation includes authorization for Centennial Centers; regrettably, these Centers were never funded. Since funding action was not taken on the Centennial Centers, we recommend striking this language and updating it with an endowment fund for the 1890's, modeled after the language in the 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA) that establishes an endowment account for the Tribal Colleges.
While the 1890's are Land-Grant Universities, we did not receive funding benefits from the distribution of Federal lands, as did our colleagues in the 1862s. Through the years, the 1890 universities have struggled with inadequate funding resources to meet the especially challenging needs of underserved communities. The proposed endowment account could be utilized to help address historical inequities of resources and to allow our institutions the opportunity to build our capacity to effectively compete for other funding resources. This endowment fund would be targeted to jump-start new initiatives on our campuses, particularly developing resources to support graduate and post-doctoral work by minority students.
Page 680 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ncrease state matching requirements for 1890 formula funding. Most 1862 Land-Grant universities receive more funding from their state governments than they do from Federal funding. Accordingly, 1862s usually do not have difficulties in matching Federal funds with required state dollars. Unfortunately, the 1890's have not enjoyed the same level of state support in the past. In the 1998 AREERA, a fifty percent (50 percent) state matching requirement was established for the 1890's. We appreciate and support the determination by Congress that state funds should be available to match, at least in part, the funds provided by the Federal Government. Since passage of AREERA, we have made some significant headway in securing state matching funds for our programs.
We now recommend increasing the state-matching requirement to a hundred percent (100 percent). We request that this matching requirement be ''ramped-up'' over the current requirement of fifty percent (50 percent), with an increase of ten percent (10 percent) per year over the course of five years. This ''ramping-up'' phase will allow our universities and the states to adjust to this increased requirement over time. In addition, we ask that the Congress clarify that the state funds that are used to match Federal funds should appropriately come from state research and extension funds, rather than from general education accounts.
We recognize that it will be harder for some of our 1890 universities to meet this matching requirement than others. We therefore ask that the Congress provide the Secretary of Agriculture greater flexibility in waiving an institution's matching requirement in response to a petition from the university.
Reauthorize the 1890 Capacity Building Grant Program. The 1890 Capacity Building Grant Program has played a critical role in helping us build our capacities in research and teaching. This program has allowed us to attract new faculty, enhance our ability to conduct quality research, and has enabled us to carry out needed curriculum development programs. Unfortunately, the authorization for this program has not included the cooperative extension arm of our Land-Grant programs. We therefore recommend expanding the eligible participants in this program to include 1890 Cooperative Extension. We also recommend that the authorized funding level for this program be increased to $25 million per year.
Page 681 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reauthorize the Socially Disadvantaged Initiative Program. We recommend reauthorizing the Socially Disadvantaged Initiative (section 2501) Program at a level not less than $10 million per year. This program allows the 1890 universities and other Community Based Organizations to cooperatively work directly in a sustained way with small farmers. We provide training in cash flow, farm management environmental stewardship, and alternative market development. We train small farmers to access new and alternative markets for their crops and animal commodities. This program has had a dramatic impact on increasing the economic viability and sustainability of these small and limited resource farmers. This critical program should be sustained and strengthened and other small farm programs should be established as a safety net for all such farmers in this category. Comparatively, this group of farming clientele has been vertically ignored in terms of specially targeted programs. We therefore ask the Committee to rectify this oversight by providing sufficient funding for this program to provide sustained impact.
Reauthorize the 1890 Facilities Grant Program. We recommend reauthorizing the 1890 Facilities Grant Program (section 1447) at a funding level of $25 million per year. The 1890's have a clear and immediate need to improve their academic, research and extension physical facilities. There is also an urgent need to adequate equip these facilities for state-of-the art equipment. Years of limited resources have taken their toll and needed improvements cannot be delayed forever. Meanwhile, new technologies require new resources and modifications to existing facilities. Without the needed improvements and technology upgrades, it becomes more and more difficulty to recruit and train top quality scientists and other educational professionals for the future. We therefore urge your support of increased authorization for the 1890 Facilities Grant program.
EQUITABLE ACCESS.
In addition to our needs for increased funding, the 1890's request assistance in gaining equitable access to existing funding sources so as to become full and active participants in the Federal/state Land-Grant partnership.
Page 682 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Raise the funding base of 1890 formula funding. We support increased formula funding for both 1862 and 1890 institutions. The amount of formula funds available to the 1890's is smaller than the amount of these funds available to our colleagues in the 1862s. Currently, the legislation requires that the funding base of 1890 formula research funding (section 1445) be set at an amount equivalent to not less than 15 percent of 1862 formula funding (Hatch funding). We recommend that this percentage be increased to an amount equivalent to not less than 25 percent of Hatch funding. Similarly, 1890 Extension formula funding (section 1444) is currently set at an amount equivalent to not less than 6 percent of 1862 Extension formula funding (Smith-Lever funding). We recommend increasing this amount to 15 percent of Smith-Lever funding.
Provide access to McIntyre-Stennis (Forestry) funding. Currently, 1890 universities are not eligible for formula funds targeted to forestry issues (McIntyre-Stennis). Many of our institutions, however, abide in states where forestry is a major agricultural industry and these institutions have forestry and natural resource programs that are germane to the forestry industry and applicable to the current program eligibility guidelines. We recommend an expansion for authorized funding for McIntyre-Stennis and increasing eligible participants to include the 1890 universities.
Include West Virginia State College. We welcome the return of West Virginia State College to the ranks of Land-Grant institutions. We recognize the need of West Virginia State to retain the base funding that has reestablished them and we agree that they should be eligible to participate in those programs for which 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University are eligible. In each instance, of course, we would hope that additional resources are made available to all of the 1890 Land-Grants and Tuskegee, so that West Virginia's participation does not put an additional and unintended burden on their colleagues.
APPROPRIATE FUNDING MECHANISMS
Page 683 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would like to commend the leadership of USDA/CSREES and the Land-Grant community in the development of the new IFAFS competitive grants program. The Department staff and others went the extra mile to make sure that our institutions were fully aware of the new program and gave us the opportunity to compete as equal partners in the process. We achieved some success, however, with enhanced support to increase our competitiveness we will do even better in the future.
While we support competitive grants, we are concerned that some mistake the term ''competitive'' with the term ''quality.'' The competitive grant process does provide a form of quality control for awarding funds for relatively short-term projects. However, many of the programs that we provide need to be sustained over time. Short-term competitively awarded projects do not adequately serve the longer-term needs of the underserved populations that we work with. Formula funding and endowment funds provide the necessary sustained funding that is required to truly build capacity. There are many ways of insuring that long-term projects have adequate quality control mechanisms in place. Indeed, the ''merit review process'' developed in the 1998 AREERA provides the kinds of oversight and review that are necessary. Again, we support competitive grants, but it is not the only funding tool and it is not always the most effective mechanism to meet our needs.
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify here today. We look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the university community as we move through the reauthorizing of the farm bill. We urge you to use this moment, this opportunity, to invest in our 1890 universities and in the future of our communities and the people we serve.
Statement of Terry Wolf
Page 684 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for inviting the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (National C-FAR) to testify. I am Terry Wolf, a grain producer from Illinois and President of the National C-FAR. Our Coalition looks forward to working with this Subcommittee as we seek to double Federal investments in food and agricultural research over the next 5 years.
We want to thank the members of this subcommittee for your support of food and agricultural research and education programs that have helped propel the world-renowned success of the U.S. food and agricultural sector. We want to keep the U.S. food and agriculture sector at the forefront. We are here to explain the crucial role that food and agricultural research plays in meeting that important goal. In the immortal words of George Washington, ''there is no more important service than to improve agriculture.''
I will be hitting the main points but request that the complete statement be included as part of the official hearing record.
In our testimony, we offer our perspective on four important questions:
(1) Why should the Federal Government invest in food and agricultural research, extension and education?
(2) What have been the measurable benefits of Federal investments for American farmers and consumers?
(3)Why should we double Federal investments in food and agricultural research over the next 5 years?
(4) How should the doubled funds be invested?
The member organizations of our coalition are mindful of the pressing challenges facing U.S. food and agriculture. Several of our members have testified to in recent weeks relative to the farm bill and related issues. However, members of National C-FAR believe it is important to address the promising opportunities ahead and the Federal policies and programs needed to promote the long-term health and vitality of food and agriculture for the benefit of producers and consumers. We believe increased Federal support for food and agricultural research and education should be a key component of this Committee's goal to develop sound food and agricultural policy.
Page 685 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NATIONAL C-FAR
National C-FAR is a newly organized broad-based stakeholder coalition of some 90 food, agriculture, nutrition, conservation and natural resource organizations. (Membership list is attached.) We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan, stakeholder-driven, and consensus-based coalition focused on Federal food and agricultural research funding. We are dedicated to fostering public confidence in food, agricultural, nutritional and natural resource research through public participation in planning and evaluating the process and impact of research activities. Our membership is open to those who support the objectives of (1) enhancing Federal investments in U.S. food and agricultural research and extension and (2) expanding stakeholder participation in identifying funding needs and opportunities.
National C-FAR's goal is to double Federal funding of food, nutrition, agriculture, natural resource, and fiber research, extension and education programs during the next five years. This is to be net additional funding on a continuing basis that complements, not competes with or displaces the existing portfolio of Federal programs of research and education.
(1) Why Should The Federal Government Invest In Food And Agricultural Research, Extension And Education?
Food and Agriculture are of Fundamental Importance
The food and agriculture sector is a major contributor to society. Food is a fundamental need of every person. Food not only maintains life, but it sustains life and provides the basic requirements for a healthy, productive, creative society.
Agriculture creates jobs and income. The food and agriculture sector and their related industries provide over 20 million jobs, about 17 percent of U.S. jobs, and account for nearly $1 trillion or 13 percent of GDP.
Agriculture reduces the trade deficit. Agricultural exports average more than $50 billion annually compared to $38 billion of imports, contributing some $12 billion to reducing the $350 billion trade deficit in the nonagricultural sector.
Page 686 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Agriculture contributes to the quality of life. Farmers provide many valuable and taken-for-granted aesthetic and environmental amenities to the public. The proximity to open space enhances the value of nearby residential property. Farmland is a natural wastewater treatment system. Unpaved land allows the recharge of the ground water that urban residents need. Farms are stopovers for migratory birds. Farmers are stewards for 65 percent of non-Federal lands and provide habitat for 75 percent of wildlife.
Food and agriculture are strategic resources. When food is scarce, peace and democracy are threatened. We have fed our allies during the great wars; we have aided the starving during famines, floods and strife; and we have provided assurances of food that have nurtured the rise of freedom following the collapse of communism.
Our abundant food supply bolsters our national security and eases world tension and turmoil. Science-based improvements in agriculture, which has drawn upon U.S. food and agricultural research, have saved over a billion people from starvation and countless millions more from the ravages of disease and malnutrition.
Federal Funding Needed Where Private Sector Lacks Incentive
Private firms undertake research if they expect that the funds invested will yield a positive net return to them. Private firms have an incentive to invest in research and development where the expected outcome can 1) be embodied in a product or service that has a market, 2) be protected by intellectual property rights and 3) generate a payback in the near term. In areas where these conditions are met, private research funding is likely to be adequate.
Public financed research should complement private research by focusing in areas where the private sector does not have an incentive to invest. Information, one of the main drivers of our economy today, indeed the term used to name our present age, shares many characteristics with research which often necessitate some public support. Research, like information, is costly to produce but cheap to reproduce, so private markets for some types of research may be inefficient. Accordingly, public research is appropriate in areas where 1) the pay-off is over a long term, 2) the potential market is more speculative, 3) the effort is during the pre-technology stage; and 3) where the benefits are widely diffused and difficult for a private firm to embody in a product or service, protect its property rights and capture the benefits through the marketplace. Public research helps us measure long-term progress. It also acts as a means to catch problems in an early stage, thus saving American taxpayer dollars in remedial and corrective actions.
Page 687 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Examples of areas where private firms are not likely to have sufficient incentive and public support may be warranted include such areas as: (1) basic science and fundamental knowledge, (2) environmental quality, (3) food safety and security, (4) understanding agricultural systems, (5) economic opportunity and quality of life in farming and rural communities and (6) public health.
Chart 1 shows the hypothetical costs and benefits of food and agricultural research which can be used to illustrate the principles guiding the respective roles of private and Federal funding. Research costs are normally incurred several years before the result is developed and adopted. In our example in chart 4, the benefits that can be captured by a private firm are colored blue and have an annualized return (an internal rate of return) of 15 percent on the research costs. The 15 percent return may be insufficient incentive for the firm. But there may be substantial benefits that accrue to society at large in addition to the private benefits that can be captured by the firm. In our hypothetical case, the public plus private benefits generate a 25 percent annual return. In this case Federal investment may be warranted.
One may also think of the blue benefits as those accruing to a state from a State Experiment Station Project, which is not justified by the benefits to the one state alone but may be justified when we consider all states and therefore the merits of multi-state collaboration or Federal support. For example, the benefits of research conducted on animal diseases in one state are likely to ''spill-over'' and aid livestock producers in neighboring states or the entire nation.
The benefits of extension and education, in terms of chart 1, can be visualized as accelerating or quickening the benefit stream. Extension education serves to speed adoption and use of research results and hence increases its payoff to society. Extension does more than accelerate adoption and use; it also helps identify the problem in the first place and provides timely feedback during the development and adoption phases.
Page 688 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(2) What Have Been The Measurable Benefits Of Federal Investments For American Farmers And Consumers?
Agricultural Research and Education Have Benefited U.S. and World
High Return on Investment: Many factors have contributed to the unparalleled success of American agriculture—the favorable soils and climate, hard work and dedication of farm families, democratic system, free enterprise, transportation, communication, diet and nutrition and government policy, but one factor of undeniable importance was the expansion of food production enabled in large part by science-based advances in food and agriculture. Hence, agricultural research and education have played a major role in making the U.S. food and agriculture sector the envy of the world and are essential to keeping it thus.
The contribution of publicly supported agricultural research to advances in food production and productivity and the resulting public benefits are well documented. A recent analysis by the International Food Policy Research Institute of 292 studies of the impacts of agricultural research and extension published since 1953 is summarized in chart 2. In these nearly 300 studies, spanning a half century, and involving 1,852 separate estimates, the median annual rate of return on public investments in food and agricultural research and extension was a whopping 44 percent—an extremely high rate of return by any benchmark. Clearly, hard and compelling facts prove beyond any doubt that investments in food and agricultural research have returned enormous benefits to the American people.
While of great importance to the farmer, improvements in agricultural productivity generated by food and agricultural research and education are broadly shared with society. Half or more of the benefits are redound to consumers in terms of an efficient production system competitive in the global environment; a safe and secure food and fiber system; a healthy; well-nourished population; greater harmony between agriculture and the environment; and a growing economy and improving quality of life. This tremendous pay-off of public investments in agricultural research and education over the past 50 years amount to $3,400 of annual savings on the food bill of the average American family. And, since lower income families spend a higher proportion of their income on food, the benefits of improvements in advances in agricultural productivity are proportionally greater for low income families.
Page 689 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Productivity growth, measured as output per unit of inputs, has grown very rapidly in agriculture at an annual pace of 1.9 percent—nearly double the pace of 1.1 percent in the non-farm business sector. In fact, as chart 3 shows, over the past 50 years, agriculture production has more than doubled, while the aggregate of all tangible inputs has actually declined by about 10 percent. In other words, all the increase in U.S. agriculture production for the past 50 years has been due to increased productivity, not due to more inputs. Research and education, both public and private, have been the prime driver of this phenomenal productivity growth.
Saving Land and the Environment: Advances in agricultural productivity have contributed to enhancing the environment and the quality of life. In his speech to the National C-FAR Inaugural meeting on January 30, 2001, Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient and one of the most distinguished agricultural scientists in the world, stated:
''American farmers and ranchers not only have been able to increase agricultural production many-fold through the application of science and technology, I contend that they have also been able to achieve these production feats in ways that have helped conserve the environment, not destroy it. For example, had the U.S. agricultural technology of 1940—still persisted today we would have needed an additional 575 million acres of agricultural lands—of the same quality—to equal the 1996–97 of 700 million tons for the 17 main food and fiber crops produced in the United States [chart 4].''
Put another way, thanks to the agricultural productivity increases made possible through research and new technology development, an area slightly greater than all the land in 25 states east of the Mississippi River has been spared for other uses. Imagine the environmental disaster that would have occurred if hundreds of millions of environmentally fragile lands, not suited to farming, had been ploughed up and brought into production. Think of the soil erosion, loss of forests and grasslands, and biodiversity, and extinction of wildlife species that would have ensued!
Page 690 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to this benefit of added agricultural productivity, research focused directly on soil conservation and land preservation such as reducing soil erosion through conservation tillage, buffer strips, and cover crops and the development of ''smart growth'' policies have also made major contributions.
Minimizing Healthcare Costs through Disease Prevention:
Nutrition and diet-related research discoveries benefit everyone. New technologies are needed to reduce the likelihood of pathogen transmission by food, to improve the quality of processed foods, and to deliver greater nutritional value in foods. Additionally, the healthcare costs reduced by advances in nutrition research have saved the American taxpayer untold millions. As health costs continue to rise, it is imperative that our medical practices take a preventive approach. This requires a thorough understanding of the role of nutrients in foods in preventing chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
Research in food safety and human nutrition has paid-off with considerable benefits to society. It complements the funding of disease-related research by focusing on prevention through diet and nutrition. An important new area of nutrition research is to discover how foods and food components (not typically thought to be traditional nutrients) can prevent various diseases throughout the lifecycle. Research on the content, availability, and safety of the food supply is extremely useful to the consumer by achieving optimal health in using agricultural commodities as part of our diets. This investment in nutrition research increases knowledge that prevents diseases and ensures a healthy and productive society.
3) Why Should We Double Food And Agricultural Research?
We should double food and agricultural research in the next five years for three basic reasons: First, despite past progress and contributions, many challenges remain. Second, Federal funding of food and agricultural research has been essentially flat for two decades, the scientific base upon which food and agriculture advances have been built is at risk. Third, there will be the opportunities lost or innovations that will not occur unless there is increased support. Research helps justify or minimize the risk of investment which produces the next generation of solutions.
Page 691 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Solve Pressing Problems
World food demand is escalating. World population and income growth are expanding the demand for food and improved diets. World food demand is projected to double in 25 years. Most of this growth will occur in the developing nations where yields are low, land is scarce, and diets are inadequate. Without a vigorous response the demand will only be met at a great global ecological cost.
Food-linked health costs are high. Some $100 billion of annual U.S. health costs are linked to poor diets and food borne pathogens.
Farm income is low. U.S. farmers are suffering from some of the lowest prices in over two decades. Emergency Federal farm assistance programs are spending record sums to avert a catastrophic farm situation. Longer term approaches to the assist farmers add and retain value of their commodities. Indeed, there was much discussion during the 1996 farm bill that expanded food and agricultural research could enhance competitiveness and value-added opportunities and be an engine for growth. But the major commitment to expanded research has not yet materialized.
Food safety concerns and expectations are rising. Some of the new food products based upon genetically modified organisms are raising increased public awareness and concern about the safety of our food supply.
We can reduce the threats to our environment and improve sustainability by gaining a better understanding of the ecosystem and the development of more environmentally friendly practices.
Energy costs are escalating, our dependence on petroleum imports is growing and our concerns about greenhouse gases are rising. Agriculture provides the potential for renewable sources of energy and cleaner burning fuels that will reduce our dependence upon rising petroleum prices and imports.
Page 692 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need improved bio-security and protection. The need for bio-security and bio-safety tools and policies to protect against bio-terrorism and dreaded problems such as foot-and-mouth and ''mad cow'' diseases and other exotic plant and animal pests, protection of range lands from invasive species, new ways of sustaining agricultural productivity and production growth, and solutions to the environmental issues related to global warming, limited water resources, competing demands for land and other agricultural resources, are major challenges for the research and education agenda.
Avert Risk of Losing Competitive Advantage
Federal funding of food and agricultural research has been flat for over 20 years. It has declined relative to all Federal research and relative to agricultural research in the rest of the world.
Federal funding of food and agricultural research in the USDA, measured in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars is less than it was in 1978 (chart 5). In 1978, in constant dollars, USDA food and agricultural research and education funding was $1.64 billion, in 2000 the funding was $1.6 billion.
Federal funding of food and agricultural research has not kept pace with funding of all Federal research. According to The National Science Foundation, total Federal research funding during 1982 to 1998 increased in constant dollars, but funding of food and agricultural research decreased. The food and agriculture research share of the Federal total has fallen from 4.2 percent to 2.5 percent (chart 6).
We may be in danger of falling behind the national support of research in other countries. Public funding of agricultural research in the rest of the world outside the U.S. during 1971–1993 increased nearly 30 percent faster pace than in the U.S. (chart 7). While we still have the leading public supported food and agricultural research and education program in the world, our edge is shrinking. In this Internet Age of global agriculture, the international transfer of technology across borders is accelerating, making it much more difficult to sustain our lead unless we increase our Federal support. Currently, we only invest about $1 of Federal funds of agricultural research per every $500 of consumer expenditures of food and fiber - a very low rate indeed (chart 8)!
Page 693 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Capitalize Upon Expanding Opportunities
The third reason, but perhaps most important one, for doubling food and agricultural research is to capitalize upon the promising opportunities that advances in science and technology make possible. Advances in science and technology are opening the way to tremendous opportunities such as the sequencing of the human, plant, and animal genomes. Taking advantage of these unprecedented biotechnological advances will require significant increases in research funding. If we do not, the technological advantage the U.S. now enjoys in these areas will be lost. This loss or our scientific leadership will have a very adverse impact on our use of new technologies that will fuel our economy over the next decades.
(4) HOW SHOULD THE DOUBLED FUNDS BE SPENT?
Goals
We believe increased funding of food and agricultural research will result in:
Safer, more nutritious, higher quality, more convenient and affordable foods
More efficient and environmentally friendly food, fiber and forest production
Improved water quality, resource conservation and environment
Less dependence on non-renewable sources of energy
New and improved products, expanded global competitiveness and improved balance of trade
More jobs and sustainable rural economic development
Better protection for our agricultural and natural resources from new, emerging, and imported plant pests and animal diseases
National C-FAR does not have a list of specific research recommendations. However, our members and their association with other related coalitions, we are well aware of urgent research needs to address and opportunities to explore.
Page 694 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Authorization & Leveraging. Legislative authorization of food and agricultural research and education is in several major pieces of legislation including the Hatch Act of 1887, The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 and most recently the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Several key provisions of the 1998 Act expire in 2002. National C-FAR recommends that:
The basic authorizations and provisions of the 1998 Act be extended nd incorporated in the new farm bill
An additional provision be included that it is the sense of Congress that Federal funding of research, extension, and education be doubled over the next five years
Provisions be strengthened to expand stakeholder participation in identifying research and education funding needs and opportunities
The current definition of ''food and agricultural sciences'' in Chapter 64- Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching, section 7, Paragraph 3103 (8) is ''basic, applied and developmental research, extension, and teaching activities in the food, agricultural, renewable natural resources, forestry, and physical and social sciences in the broadest sense of these terms.'' We support a broadening of this definition to include expanded international market opportunities, protection from plant and animal diseases and pests, and human nutrition and health. We also support a better identification of the various food and agricultural research programs throughout the Federal Government and improved the coordination of these programs. The challenges and opportunities of the food and agricultural sector require the interest, support, and participation of all Federal agencies.
Building Capacity and a Balanced Portfolio
National C-FAR and its member organizations have identified several emerging needs and opportunities which we soon will explain, but we first want to emphasize the continuing need to build the capacity to do quality research and education, including human resources, competitive grants, infrastructure support, formula funds, and core programs. Research and education is the foundation of knowledge upon which the food and agricultural sector depends. This foundation must be kept strong, lest it crumble and curtail the strength and expansion of this trillion dollar sector. Even to maintain existing productivity, substantial maintenance research is necessary. Discovery is a continuous process that must be ongoing, not a one-time eureka moment.
Page 695 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is important to maintain a balanced portfolio of Federal research and education programs, including competitive grants, formula funds and intramural programs. Agriculture is a biologically based industry. Many of the problems and opportunities are site specific. Results must be adapted to fit local conditions. Hence, we need to maintain a diversified and decentralized research and education system.
Areas of Opportunity
Several coalitions, committees and scientific societies, including those listed below, have identified these needs and opportunities:
Coalition for Research on Plant Systems—CROPS 1999, Food Animal Integrated Research for 2002—FAIR 2002, Institute of Food Technologists—Food for Health Research Needs, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics—Economics and Research Priorities for an Efficient and Sustainable Food System, American Society for Nutritional Sciences, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, American Dietetic Association, National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP), Members of our Research Committee have presented to our Board a compilation of these studies.
Major areas of research that have been commonly identified by most, if not all, of the related coalitions that are in need of additional funding include:
Food security, safety, fortification, enrichment and allergens
Nutrition and public health
Production quantity and quality; nutrient adequacy; global competitiveness; and new market opportunities
Environmental stewardship and resource conservation and the scientific basis for public policies relating to the environment, plants and animals
Increasing knowledge, skills, and expertise
Page 696 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Emergency preparedness for emerging plant and animal diseases and bio-terrorism
Product pioneering for food, nutrition, biobased materials and biofuels
Genetic resources, genetic knowledge, and biotechnology
Jobs and rural community economic vitality
Education and outreach to producers, processors and consumers including food safety, sound nutrition, conservation, management, and new technology
Our coalition arose from a shared concern about the capacity of our agricultural research system as a whole to meet the future demands and capitalize on emerging opportunities. We will need a research system that simultaneously satisfies needs for food quality and quantity, resource preservation, producer profitability and social acceptability. This coalition will be working on ways to help assure that these needs are met.
In conclusion, we hope we have convinced you that:
(1) Food and agriculture is an important sector that merits Federal attention and support.
(2) Food and agricultural research and education have paid huge dividends in the past, not just to farmers, but to the entire nation and the world.
(3) There is an appropriate and recognized definable role for Federal support of research and education.
(4) Federal investments in food and agricultural research should be doubled over the next 5 years.
We believe doubling of Federal food and agricultural funding is a strategic and sound investment that would: (1) benefit producers and consumers of all commodities and all states; (2) improve income opportunities for farmers; (3) contribute to the United States remaining the best fed country with the lowest share of income spent on food; (4) strengthen our competitiveness in the global marketplace, while achieving the proper balance with human and environmental needs; (5) enable producers to produce safer, healthier foods; (6) find new uses for agricultural products; and (7) enhance the protection of our renewable natural resources.
Page 697 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views. We look forward to working with you and the members of this Subcommittee in support of these important long-term objectives.
[insert 4 scans here]
Statement of Floyd P. Horn
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), I am pleased to be here today to talk about what ARS is doing for American agriculture and how our agency responded to the directives in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 farm bill) and the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (1998 Research Title).
As the Department of Agriculture's in-house research agency, ARS maintains a balanced program of fundamental and applied research that is long-term and high risk and therefore not cost-effective for the private sector. ARS research emphasizes solving agricultural problems that are national or regional in scope and in the best interests of the Nation as a whole ARS. We also provide objective scientific expertise for U.S. Department of Agriculture regulatory and action agencies. Our science fuels USDA agencies like the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety Inspection Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration as they work to create responsible policy and carry out their missions effectively. ARS also serves a number of other Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and some components within the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Interior.
ARS carries out its mission with a network of highly skilled scientists, engineers, technicians, and support people who can respond quickly to emerging problems. ARS has the unique ability to form interdisciplinary research teams from a diverse scientific workforce with geographical and discipline expertise. Not only do we carry out and support excellent relevant science but we are also charged with providing information access and technology dissemination of the results of our research to the people who need it—American farmers, producers, consumers and other stakeholders. The results of agricultural research can lead to a more competitive environment for agricultural products and help improve quality and consumer demand.
Page 698 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ARS program budget for fiscal year 2001 is $896.8 million. We have a total of 8,136 full time employees, including 2,000 PhD level career scientists. We are particularly proud of the fact that only 7–8 percent of the ARS workforce is in administrative or program management positions-we focus most of our resources on the science itself. ARS scientists operate from more than 100 strategic locations nation-wide and from five locations overseas. These locations reflect the diverse agricultural regions throughout the U.S. and key areas of global importance to American agriculture.
For fiscal year 2002, the ARS is requesting $946.1 million, an increase in funding of $79.3 million from fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2002 request includes $915.6 million to support ongoing research and new activities in high priority areas such as new uses for agricultural products, emerging and exotic diseases and pests and biotechnology. In addition, $30.5 million is provided to fund high priority modernization or construction projects in seven locations.
What does this public investment in agricultural research and infrastructure buy for the American taxpayer? As any economist will tell you, increased productivity is the key to a growing and thriving economy and American agriculture has enjoyed a remarkable rise in productivity during the past sixty years. For example, in 1940, one U.S. farmer fed 19 people. Today one U.S. farmer can feed 129 people. This increase in productivity is, in no small way, due to agricultural research and 75 percent of the growth in American agricultural productivity is accounted for by public investment in agricultural research and development (R&D) and infrastructure.
Americans are getting high returns on their investment in agricultural research. Farmers benefit from agricultural research in the short run because research can lead to lower production costs and higher profits. However, consumers benefit in the long run because research can impact lower food prices and provide for a safer food supply. This impacts lower income Americans more significantly since they spend a greater portion of their income on food. Most studies have found rates of return on the public investment in agricultural research to be between 20–60 percent( Ahearn, Mary, et al, *Agricultural Productivity in the United States,,* USDA Economic Research Service, January 1998, p. 10.
Page 699 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
). And, over the years, the tasks of ARS has grown to solving broad technical agricultural problems; ensuring an abundant safe food supply; sustaining a viable and competitive food and agricultural economy; and to maintaining a quality environmental and natural resource base.
Increasingly, international collaboration has become an important aspect of ARS research. As a leader in the global community, the United States has strategic interests around the world and an obligation to the world community to help solve global issues of food insecurity, agricultural pests and diseases, and environmental degradation. ARS actively engages in cooperative agreements with numerous national and international organizations for the benefit of American agriculture.
Dealing with the introduction of foreign pests and diseases, whether intentionally introduced or not, is a major objective of ARS's research programs. Immediate concern has centered on research into Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) which has devastated the livestock industry in the United Kingdom(U.K.) in recent months.
This spring, ARS sent a team of veterinarians, including three from ARS, to assist the U.K. government in dealing with the FMD crises. This type of experience provided the Department valuable information about FMD that will benefit the US in our prevention and preparedness efforts.
The 1996 farm bill set a new direction for American agriculture by beginning the process of phasing out farm subsidy payments based on production levels and introducing free market disciplines. The effect of this legislation and the 1998 Research Title was to heighten the importance of agricultural research as one form of a safety net beneath producers and ranchers. To help ensure a strong safety net, the two laws updated and expanded the purposes of agricultural research and lifted the bar higher than ever before regarding priority setting and validation of our research programs.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to tell the subcommittee how ARS addressed the eight expanded purposes in the1996 farm bill and how we implemented the priority setting, and relevance and merit sections in the 1998 Research Title. Other provisions in these two laws impact ARS but these are the authorities requiring new or improved direction.
Page 700 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To fully integrate the tenets of the agricultural research purposes into the Agency's processes, ARS incorporated them into its strategic plan, which is the basis of our budget development and response to the Government Performance and Results Act. More importantly, the program structure of the agency was reorganized into 22 national programs that link the purposes with the agency's objectives and ultimately our accomplishments. The following are a few examples of our research and accomplishments as they relate to the eight purposes in the 1996 farm bill:
Enhance the competitiveness of the United States agriculture and food industry in an increasingly competitive world environment.
ARS research has been instrumental in many areas at reducing trade barriers. A notable example is the development of a Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) system developed for wheat dwarf bunt fungus by ARS and industry researchers. This risk assessment system resulted in a 57-page report used by U.S. trade officials during negotiations with China to ease restrictions on U.S. wheat imports. The negotiations centered on China's concern that accepting grain with dwarf bunt fungus could spread the fungus to their domestic wheat crops. The fungus, Tilletia controversa Kuhn (TCK), sporadically infects winter wheat crops in the Pacific Northwest, but poses no human health risk. Under certain conditions, it damages the wheat kernel. With the pest risk assessments, our trade negotiators were able to present compelling scientific evidence showing TCK poses a negligible risk to China's domestic wheat crop from U.S. grain imports. The PRAs have also proved invaluable in similar negotiations with India, Brazil and Mexico.
As part of the agreement signed with the United States on April 10, 1999, China eased its zero-tolerance policy. According to USDA estimates, that opened the door to $150 million worth of possible U.S. wheat exports.
The PRAs draw on more than 10 years of laboratory and field research on TCK's genetic variability, geographic distribution, spore growth, virulence and survival under various crop-production practices and grain handling regimens.
Page 701 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During the past three years ARS scientists played a pivotal role in fighting and winning a major victory for American agriculture. Our scientists took an active part in devising the legal strategy used to prove the U.S. case against Japan in the first ever suit over quarantine issues before the World Trade Organization.
ARS scientists testified for the U.S. and provided scientific data confirming that ARS-developed procedures to prevent codling moths from hitchhiking to Japan on American apples, cherries, nectarines and walnuts regardless of the specific variety. ARS research helped open up previously closed markets, in Japan and other countries, representing millions of dollars to the American agricultural industry.
Critical research that is competitiveness-related is the work our scientists are doing to find alternatives for methyl bromide. Methyl Bromide is a tremendously valuable chemical having both pre and post harvest uses as a pesticide and herbicide. However, it contributes to the depletion of the earth's ozone layer and may have potentially significant environmental consequences worldwide, although the magnitude of the contribution from agricultural uses is uncertain.
Through international agreements, the U.S. is scheduled to ban the production and importation of methyl bromide on January 1, 2005, so the race to find alternatives is an agricultural imperative. Currently, ARS research on methyl bromide includes evaluating potential alternatives and the development of a trapping and recycling system that may allow the continued use of methyl bromide. This research has tremendous potential for growers, processors and packers.
Another significant achievement has been the modernization of sulfur dioxide fumigation technology used to control a form of fungal root rot in table grapes. Through efforts in collaboration with the University of California, this research will help growers maintain the quality of grapes and help increase their marketability in a competitive $700 million dollar industry.
Page 702 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Develop new uses and new products for agricultural commodities, such as alternative fuels, and develop new crops.
USDA and the Department of Energy developed joint Bioenergy Initiatives for fiscal years 2001–02 and have worked together to develop technologies and processes to increase the use of biobased fuels. ARS research is also focusing on the development of industrial and bioenergy products that offer an opportunity to meet environmental needs, replace exports and petroleum-based products, and expand market opportunities.
Another area addresses the development of advanced materials and manufacturing technologies in the conversion of plant and animal products to biobased plastics, biofuels, soy ink, fiber products, biopesticides, and ingredients for lubricants, specialty chemicals, paint, and health care industries.
Enhanced production, harvesting, and handling of crops that are feedstocks for production of biofuels is also an area of ARS research.
More rapid production of environmentally friendly ethanol at less cost.
Separation of the corn kernel and hull in the current corn milling process requires large quantities of sulfites, which can produce serious environmental and health risks. ARS scientists at the Eastern Regional Research Center in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania and collaborators from the University of Illinois have successfully demonstrated a new corn soaking process, using enzymes to reduce or eliminate the need for sulfites. In addition to environmental and health benefits, preliminary cost estimates indicate the new process cuts steeping time in half and reduces the cost of producing fuel ethanol by several cents per gallon.
Process to convert ethanol byproducts to coatings and films.
The volume of byproducts from ethanol production exceeds the demand for use as animal feed which is a barrier to reducing the cost of fuel ethanol. These byproducts contain zein, a major corn protein that has market potential. ARS engineers at the Eastern Regional Research Center have shown by use of laboratory and computer modeling techniques that a production scale continuous process for extracting zein from ethanol byproducts is realistic and economical. This process will result in expanded use of zein for industrial coatings and films and effectively lower the cost of producing fuel ethanol.
Page 703 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Maintain an adequate, nutritious, and safe supply of food to meet human nutritional needs and requirements.
ARS' food safety research program assesses the safety of animal and plant products and develops methods to control potential food contaminants. ARS' human nutrition research program looks to establish the relationship between diet, nutritional status, and health throughout life and the contribution of diet to disease resistance and the reduction of disorders related to nutrition. The human nutrition program develops methods for determining food components and maintains national food composition databases. The outcomes of these efforts are a safe and nutritious food supply, and a knowledge base that enables humans to make healthful food choices.
ARS' research has found: zinc levels are predictive of mood disturbances and behavior problems in school aged children, flavonoids inhibit glucose uptake, early nutritional deficits impair learning ability, gender affects heart disease, calcium absorption and bone calcium deposition are most significant during early puberty, and conjugated linoleic acid does not have beneficial effects as previously thought.
Increase the long-term productivity of the United States agriculture and food industry while maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base on which rural America and the United States agricultural economy depend.
ARS research in natural resources seeks to develop a comprehensive understanding of soil, water, and air, and their interactions with plants and animals, so that new and appropriate technology can be developed for responsible, economically viable, and environmentally sound farming systems.
ARS scientists have developed an environmental alternative to petroleum-based inks. Inks made from 100 percent soybean oil have characteristics that either meet or exceed industry standards for product functionality. The patented technology has been licensed to Franks Research Inc. of Oklahoma City. ARS is also negotiating a license with Quincy Soybean Inc. of Quincy, Illinois to provide a new industrial market for agricultural commodities. In addition to the technology's environmental benefits, 100 percent soy inks have low rub-off characteristics, compared to conventional inks. Degradability of inks made from 100 percent soy oil exceeds inks that are made using blends of soy oil and petroleum resin.
Page 704 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ARS' research accomplishments include: corn and barley with greater nutritional value, a method which separates solids and liquids from swine wastewater, chemicals that destroy harmful bacteria and reduce manure odors, switchgrass buffers which reduce leaching of pesticides into groundwater, polyacrylamide and riparian buffers which limit water pollution, a deer treatment device that reduces ticks which transmit lyme disease, a wetland/reservoir subirrigation system which minimizes sediment and nutrient loading of streams and rivers, and a blowing dust warning system that alerts individuals with health problems.
Another example of how ARS research benefits the environment relates to reducing the amount of phosphate generated by poultry production. High levels of phosphorous in poultry manure create an adverse environmental effect from poultry production. However, reducing nutritionally available phosphorous in the diet generally reduces production performance of broiler chickens. ARS scientists have determined that the level of phosphorous can be reduced in broiler rations when phytase is included to make the phosphorus more available. Thus, adverse effects on growth, feed efficiency or bone strength are avoided and the total amount of phosphorus excreted in the manure is reduced. This discovery will enable the poultry industry to reduce the amount of phosphorus generated from poultry production operations, while maintaining a profitable production system.
Improve risk management in the United States agriculture industry.
ARS research addresses the multifaceted risks that are inherent in the U.S. food and fiber production and processing systems. They can have economic, environmental, and human health components. The risks associated with weather extremes, such as droughts and floods often result in serious economic losses and major environmental damage. Serious crop and animal losses can also result from temperature extremes, hail, and other weather conditions. Crop and animal producers frequently suffer severe economic losses from diseases, insects, and other pests. Our objective in this area is targeted towards minimizing and, where feasible, eliminating the impact of these risks through development of better animals and plants and improved production and processing systems.
Page 705 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Improve the safe production and processing of, and adding of value to, United States food and fiber resources using methods that maintain the balance between yield and environmental soundness.
ARS research develops new and improved management practices, integrated pest management strategies, and integrated sustainable agricultural production systems to enhance the safety, quality, and productivity of the U.S. agricultural production and processing systems, while protecting the Nation's environment.
Development of integrated pest management (IPM) technologies and management strategies for large-area application.
ARS has implemented area-wide IPM projects in partnership with other Federal and State institutions and the private sector that have been highly successful in reducing pesticide usage. These projects include: (a) mating disruption for codling moth on tree fruits in the Pacific Northwest, which has resulted in an 80 to 100 percent reduction in organophosphate pesticide use; and (b) the use of attract and kill technology in the Midwest for corn rootworm that reduces populations by greater than 90 percent with less than 10 percent of the chemicals used in current corn rootworm control regimes. The success of these projects has attracted national and international attention because they point the way toward overcoming barriers to applying IPM practices over very large agricultural areas.
New model systems for controlling soil and water erosion.
ARS scientists have developed erosion prediction models, including the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), the Revised Wind Erosion Equation (RWEQ), and the Water Erosion Prediction project (WEPP), that will help reduce soil erosion in the United States and elsewhere. Soil erosion lowers the productivity of our agricultural lands and creates water quality problems. These erosion prediction models are being used on a national scale by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to help farmers and land use planners select land management practices that minimize soil losses by wind and water.
Page 706 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conduct ''agricultural research . . . to promote economic opportunity in rural communities and to meet the increasing demand for information and technology transfer throughout the United States agriculture industry.''
ARS integrates basic long-term research and targeted short-term research to develop new technologies, practices, and production enterprises that increase profits, enhance the farm ecosystem, and develop small-scale processing technologies to create value-added products from agricultural commodities. In addition, ARS has improved access to research information, targeted information dissemination, and transfers technology more effectively, as well as enhanced exchange of problem-solving information with domestic and international research organizations. While the introductory focus of our goal in this area is expanding economic opportunities, ARS interprets the information and technology transfer provisions to apply across the board to all areas of agricultural research.
Support higher education in agriculture to give the next generation of Americans the knowledge, technology, and applications necessary to enhance the competitiveness of United States agriculture.
ARS has a limited role to play in directly supporting higher education. The agency provides training opportunities for graduate and postdoctoral students, enabling them to gain valuable knowledge and experience. Some of these scientists are eventually hired as full-time employees where they serve to maintain and enhance the agency's core scientific capabilities. Most go on to serve U.S. agriculture in other Federal, State, and local agencies, private industry, or academia.
ARS, through the programs and services of the National Agricultural Library, provides access to information for institutions of higher education, their faculties, researchers, and students. In addition, ARS supports public information, outreach, extension, and educational activities.
Page 707 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the message was very clear in the 1998 Research Title that Congress expected rigorous peer review of federally funded research and that research priorities should be established with input from our customers, stakeholders, and partners. In response to the mandate for external input in the establishing research priorities, ARS has conducted more than 40 national program workshops, held in locations all over the country. The workshops brought scientists and national program staffers together with our customers-over 3000 of them. Particularly important to us was talking to producers directly. These workshops featured hundreds of growers and ranchers, who discussed with our scientists the problems and needs they face on the farm or ranch. Together we worked to understand the information or tools that will help them succeed. Representatives from all our customer groups were represented at the workshops, including Federal and state partners of ARS, industry groups and businesses, non-governmental organizations, and university researchers. A special effort is made to invite small and disadvantaged producers to these gatherings. We are proud of our workshops - the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.
After the workshops, our scientists develop action plans for each national program designed to solve the problems or fill the needs of our customers. These national workshops are not only helping us to be more responsive to our customers, they are increasing coordination and cooperation across our one hundred locations and our varied scientific disciplines, bringing a more integrated approach to bear on problems of a high national priority. In this way, we strive to meet the needs of the people who use our research directly, targeting our coordinated and cooperative efforts at the problems of our customers.
The 1998 Research Title also directed the Secretary to establish procedures to ensure scientific peer review of all research activities conducted by the Department. The statute requires a review panel to verify, at least once every 5 years, that each USDA research activity has scientific merit and relevance.
Page 708 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response, ARS established the Office of Scientific Quality Review in 1999 to manage the agency's research project peer review system. The Office includes a senior scientist called the Scientific Officer who selects a Panel Chair for each six-member panel to review about 20 ARS projects. The Panel Chair and majority of panel reviewers must be non-ARS scientists. Ultimately, each of the approximately 1,100 research projects will be reviewed at least once every five years by a panel comprised of independent and objective subject matter experts who base their evaluations on stringent criteria and relevance to the mission and objectives in ARS' 22 National Programs.
To date, five panel review sessions have been held for 187 research projects. Ninety-nine percent of the reviewers were from outside of ARS. The majority of our projects reviewed were found to require only minor revisions. And I would add that ARS has worked very closely with the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board regarding the establishment and progress of our peer review system.
I want to thank the subc ommittee again for the opportunity to be here today. I hope my testimony conveys the message that the 1996 farm bill and the 1998 Research Title have served the Agricultural Research Service well. We take great pride in our many achievements on behalf of American agriculture and the American public. With your support we will continue to ensure that America remains a land of plenty—a land with a growing and thriving agricultural economy, abundant in natural resources, a land with a plentiful supply of safe and nutritious food for its people and with the greatest agricultural system in the world.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.
Statement of Sam Curl
Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my thanks to you and the Committee for the invitation to testify here today. I am Sam Curl, Dean and Director of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Oklahoma State University. I am here representing the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). Founded in 1887, NASULGC is the Nation's oldest higher education association. A voluntary association of public universities, land-grant institutions and many of the Nation's public university systems, NASULGC campuses are located in all 50 states, the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. As of October 2000, the association's membership stood at 212 institutions. This includes 75 land-grant universities (of which 17 are the historically black public institutions created by the Second Morrill Act of 1890) and 28 public higher education systems. In addition, tribal colleges became land-grant institutions in 1994 and 30 are represented in NASULGC through the membership of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). My colleague, Dr. Phills, will be speaking on behalf of the 1890 institutions and I understand that the 1994 institutions (Tribal Colleges) and the U.S. territories will be submitting testimony for the record. The 1890's and the 1994s are represented on our Board on Agriculture and have participated in the development of the positions that I will speak to today.
Page 709 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank the Chair and this Committee for the leadership and the commitment you've shown to research, extension and education that supports the U.S. food, agriculture and natural resource system. We particularly want express our appreciation to the Committee for the establishment and support of the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) in the 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act. This new programs focuses the research and extension talent of the land-grant and state university system on critical national issues at the local level.
FUNDING NEEDS
While IFAFS has proved a needed and wise investment, there is so much more that needs to be done. As we've heard from the testimony here today and in other hearings in the House and Senate, there is widespread recognition of the need to reinvest in our agricultural science and education foundation. We have witnessed decades of level funding or declining funding in agricultural science and education. As my colleagues from National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Systems (N-CFAR) have testified today, while private sector research has stimulated valuable innovations in agriculture, research areas that lack adequate short-term incentives for the private sector remain under-funded. Indeed today the picture of public versus private investment in agricultural science and education looks quite different. As shown in the attached chart, the private sector has steadily increased its investment while the public investment has decreased proportionately. This relative increase in private sector investments has recently led to questions about the independence and objectivity of research and outreach at the universities. There are issues to consider regarding intellectual property rights and private-public sector collaboration. However, the single action that could best ensure sustained and robust autonomy by the universities would be to reinvigorate the Federal investment in agricultural research, extension and education. We seek to regain a balance between public and private sector funding for agriculture research and education. In so doing, our Budget Committee and the Board on Agriculture have endorsed and support N-CFAR's recommendation for doubling agricultural science funding.
Page 710 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We support the recommendation of a doubling in funding for agricultural research, extension and education programs over the next five years.
We also appreciate the testimonies submitted by the leadership of major farm and commodity groups that call for this doubling effort. We look forward to working very closely with these groups to develop and support new programs that will aggressively address their highest priority needs and to do so in a timely and accountable manner.
We believe that the IFAFS competitive grants model addresses several critical issues regarding private-public partnerships in research and education. First, IFAFS is targeted to practical problem-oriented research questions, that address real world production, processing and natural resource management issues. IFAFS is designed to address those issues that fall in the ''chasm'' between basic discovery research and product development research. Second, IFAFS facilitates collaboration between research, extension and teaching within and among universities, so that education and outreach are core and coequal components in addressing critical issues. Third, IFAFS facilitates joint efforts between the private and public sector to work together, leveraging private sector resources to address national public issues. We understand that there have been questions raised about the mandatory nature of the funding provided through IFAFS. From the university perspective, the critical issue is whether or not critical work is addressed and funded. Whether the funding sources are mandatory or discretionary is an issue for the Congress to resolve. We draw attention, however, to the structure and organization of the Initiative and we support its expansion and further refinement in the next authorization of the farm bill.
We recommend the expansion and further refinement of the IFAFS in the reauthorization of the farm bill.
ADDRESSING CRITICAL ISSUES FOR THE NEW CENTURY
We would like to take this opportunity to describe the ways in which research, education, and extension can add value to the policies and programs designed to revitalize rural and tribal communities, provide for a safe and abundant food supply, and promote environmental stewardship among America's farming community. As you have heard from others, we firmly believe that a strong science and education foundation is a necessary and critical component to effectively deal with all of the policy issues included in the farm bill.
Page 711 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given current market forces and the coming changes in farm support programs, how do we re-tool research, extension and education programs to better meet the current needs of farmers and ranchers? How do we increase ''value-added'' opportunities to farmers and ranchers and their new business entities, thereby enhancing the economies of their communities?
How can we respond more quickly to emerging public concerns about the safety of our food products and processes? How can we better under-gird our trade and marketing objectives with sound science, drawn from cutting edge research programs, and delivered through the most effective education outreach efforts?
How do we link research, extension and education programs to address conservation and environmental issues being faced by producers and processors?
How do we foster a new model of cooperation between the Federal laboratories, the universities and the private sector as the genomes of plants and animals are sequenced and a new generation of functional genomics emerges? What programs need to be in place to assure the public that adequate safeguards are in place as new products emerge from this technology?
How do we better link our science and education capacities to meet the nutrition and public assistance responsibilities of the Department?
How do we better link our distributed research, extension and education system to meet the needs of our rural and tribal communities?
Programs that address these challenges are in other titles of the farm bill. We are very interested in assuring that there are clear linkages between the research, extension and education system addressed in the Research, Extension and Education title of the farm bill and the other titles of the bill. Our goal is to work with you and our constituents and stakeholder organizations to insure that our programs are closely connected to the critical policy issues and needs being addressed in the rest of the legislation. In the following testimony, I review some ways that research, extension and education may be directed to the critical issues facing this Committee.
Page 712 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Supporting farmers
Farm Subsidies
In the course of the current farm bill Hearings, recommendations for changing the farm support programs are emerging. Most of these proposed changes imply some type of revenue assurance or insurance as the tool of choice. The idea is to pay the farmers in periods of low prices and yields, but not in times of high prices and/or yields. The 21st Century Commission described this new counter cyclical program as Supplemental Income Support (SIS). It is related to a similar proposal by Congressman Stenholm, the Supplemental Income Payments for Producers (SIPP). Analyses of these and related possibilities suggest that with somewhat more sophisticated approaches, based on simple principles of insurance, the cost of the government program for agriculture could be greatly reduced. It is certainly possible that the 2002 farm bill will include the ideas of revenue insurance and counter cyclical payments.
Possible issues for the land-grant colleges and state universities include:
Research on risk management tools that exist in the market and on new tools that may become available in the 2002 farm bill. Educate farmers about their use. Also provide risk management assistance to livestock producers as well as crop farmers. This could counter a longstanding lack of attention to livestock producers, and is now more an issue with the increasing specialization of farmers.
Targeting the needs of small farmers. We support enhancing and expanding the abilities of the state universities and land-grant colleges to provide programs to small and underserved producers and their communities.
Research and education to improve the design and implementation mechanisms for revenue and other insurance tools, private and public.
Developing extension outreach programs to help agriculture producers ''transition'' to part-time farming or other occupations. If there is a reduction in payment programs and a move towards assurance/insurance programs, some producers may benefit from transition assistance.
Page 713 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research and education to improve understanding of the role of the farm subsidies and the delivery mechanisms for the economic welfare of rural and tribal communities.
Developing approaches to the increasingly segmented or differentiated markets for agricultural products, including pre- and post-farmgate value-added business opportunities. For example, develop systems of quality management and electronic marketing that can better serve customers in a segmented agricultural market. Premiums for these products and processes will be important to farm income as the blanket subsidy levels fall.
Exploring ways to better use private land in support of the development of rural areas, recreation and amenity production as compared to crop/animal production, ensuring that the subsidy delivery structure does not disadvantage the producers that pursue these avenues.
Stressing the importance of alternative uses of agricultural commodities such as sustainable energy production, and assuring that the necessary research and education and outreach programs are in place to develop the associated production, processing and distribution systems.
Developing a program for the review of alternative value-added forest products derived from thinnings and small-diameter trees. This program would assist land owners to determine whether any alternative products can be produced from smaller diameter trees found on their property, and spur the development of cottage industries that promote their utilization.
Helping the public and farmers / ranchers understand the incidence of subsidies and the incidence of the benefits, e.g., for FY2000, the estimate is that about $13 billion of the total farm expenses will go to rental paid to off-farm owners. This is more than 5 percent of total farm expenses.
Check-off Programs
The so-called ''check-off'' programs for many of the major and minor commodities provide significant support to research, education and extension as well as other activities. The state universities and land-grant colleges play an important role in these programs. At the same time, producers are questioning the effectiveness of check-off supported promotion programs that are generic or commodity based. How can these programs be improved to more effectively address the needs of producers?
Page 714 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Opportunities and challenges for the state universities and land-grant colleges include:
Independent research to determine if check-off programs are in the best interest of producers and add value beyond their cost.
Assessing the value of generic advertising. Perhaps these funds would yield a higher return if they were redirected to activities other than direct promotion of generic commodities.
Linking the promotion programs to branding and other similar activities that take advantage of increasingly segmented markets for agricultural products.
Perhaps check-off funding could be directed to support new marketing systems rather than to generic commodity-based promotion. If this change were made, the state universities and land-grant colleges could be effective cooperators with the commodity associations in carrying out the research and education to assure effective implementation of programs to take advantage of new technologies to support product differentiation and increased returns to farmers.
Credit
It is possible that credit issues will need to be addressed, due in part to the adjustments in the private banking/credit sector that are coming with the implementation of reforms authorized by the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act of 1999.
Specific linkages to research, extension and education could include:
Identification and analysis of the market failures that the government intervention is designed to correct.
Expanded collaboration among commercial banks, the farm credit system, and the Extension system to provide financial management education and outreach programs.
Expansion of the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Program to help participants access the resources of state universities and land-grant colleges.
Page 715 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Credit might be more fully opened to non-farm enterprises in rural communities as a developmental tool, complementing the programs under Title VII.
Building international trade and market opportunities
Questions have been asked about the effectiveness of some of the trade and market programs authorized in the farm bill. There have not been adequate linkages between these issues and the science and education provisions of the farm bill. Countless studies have shown that investments in science serve as a ''discovery engine'' that drives the development of new technologies, which in turn provides a foundation for value-added products and processes that provide profit and positive trade balances. New technologies, new processes and new practices are necessary to maintain and enhance our global competitiveness. New technologies need to be developed that focus on providing value-added opportunities for U.S. producers and processors, technologies that provide enhanced income though better identifying and meeting diversified customer demands. Finally, publicly funded research and development has provided the U.S. a competitive advantage through the years. It is economically essential that we retain this advantage.
Issues for state universities and land-grant colleges include:
Future market growth for U.S. agricultural products remains in the global market. We support increasing the utilization of our international agricultural scientists and educators to help our producers respond more effectively to the global dimensions of agriculture.
Our agricultural curricula and degree programs, as well as not-for-credit extension training programs need to be retooled to better prepare our students to compete in a global economy. Students, scientists and educators need enhanced opportunities to study and participate in agricultural programs abroad. The 1998 AREERA includes authorization of GASEPA (Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America). We recommend the reauthorization of this program and its full implementation.
Page 716 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Developing better strategies for export promotion, and demonstrate their success as measured according to agreed upon criteria.
Utilizing the concessionary exports to accomplish broader global and recipient nation development objectives compared to market development.
Improving understanding of the implications of market development strategies and concessionary exports for recipient countries, and the dumping practices they were in part designed to counter.
Increasing participation in the use of local currency funds (section 416 (b)) to support internationalization of the agriculture curriculum and youth programs.
Enhancing linkages between the PL 480 and international agricultural science and education programs. As a model, there is an IPM CRSP grant that has made good use of PL 480 resources in Guatemala to support an applied research activity to enhance the development of nontraditional export crops in that nation. This benefits the U.S. though enhancement of our own domestic markets for these crops during the off-season when US sources are not available.
Developing ''food grant universities' to make long-term commitments to food deficit nations and use the local currency generated by monitization to support the development of land-grant like higher education institutions. U.S. state universities and land-grant colleges would be paired with the developing country institutions.
Directly participating in the Farmer-to-Farmer Program, perhaps expanding it to include undergraduate and graduate students in College of Agriculture programs.
Partnering with FAS to develop new and more cooperative foreign technical assistance programs. The state universities and land-grant colleges have a great capacity to partner in this new program.
Existing agricultural trade and development mechanisms can achieve expanded objectives. Most of the export increases have been related to price and increased incomes in developing nations. Education is broadly accepted as a key to economic development, a major factor in growing the total export market for agricultural commodities. The food grant university, undergraduate and graduate foreign study/exchange, and FAS cooperative proposals have the U.S. exporting what it does well.
Page 717 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conserving natural resources
Continuing to improve the stewardship of natural resources and the environment is one of the most critical and pressing issues facing farmers and ranchers, and our nation. Agriculture is seen as a major source of the nonpoint contamination of surface and ground water in the United States. Agriculture is also an issue for air quality and for the larger concerns about global warming. Environmental groups are impatient with agriculture; there is frustration with the perceived failure to achieve measurable improvements. This impatience is reflected in the development of regulatory solutions, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's), nutrient standards for surface water, and AFO/CAFOs, for animal waste management.
Cooperation between USDA and the USEPA has resulted in a new approach that emphasizes results-based outcomes and de-emphasizes regulating the practices that lead to these measurable outcomes. If this approach continues to emerge, there will be an increase in the need for Federal and state staff for technical assistance and for monitoring and compliance. The U.S. research, extension and education system will have a unique and essential role to play in the emergence of a new, results based approach to environmental management. These challenges transcend national boundaries; our international agricultural research and education programs will allow us to draw on discoveries and techniques emerging in other countries. Research is needed for developing new production management tools and assessment systems. Extension should be fully utilized to work in collaboration with USDA/NRCS and the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) to develop the education and outreach programs that will be necessary for success.
Conservation and environmental issues facing agriculture are complex. Dramatic investments in the science base underlying the programs that are developed to protect the environment can add tremendous value to these programs. There is a great need for increased education and outreach efforts. Greater cooperation between CSREES, ARS, NRCS and the state universities and land-grant colleges is critical to these efforts.
Page 718 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Possible issues for state universities and land-grant colleges include:
Supporting Extension education programming associated with specialized conservation programs such as EQIP, WHIP, FIP, WRP, and others.
Researching new conservation management practices for potential impacts on water and air quality and educating farmers about their use. For example, conduct additional research into, and outreach to farmers about, the effect of no-till and other conservation practices on water quality for related watersheds.
Developing extension outreach and research assistance programs to help farmers meet the increasing environmental regulations, such as AFO/CAFO. There is a need to develop alternatives to practice-based compliance.
Conducting systematic assessment and beta analysis of how different conservation programs are working to achieve environmental results.
Researching and monitoring environmental benefits of different priorities for conservation programs such as EQIP.
Providing added on-farm and watershed demonstrations of environmental management practices.
Researching grazing lands, validation of wind erosion models and crop loss models, and land use management (e.g., Farm Land Protection Program).
Conducting research necessary to integrate commodity and conservation programs.
Establishing local clearinghouses and educational programs for environmental regulations with which conservation programs must comply.
Coordinating education and technical assistance programs, developed collaboratively between extension and NRCS and National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD).
Page 719 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Establishing a biodiversity program to include germplasm collection and mechanisms for public ownership.
Expanding youth participation in conservation programs via extension services.
Supporting colleges of agriculture as they develop natural resources and environmental management curricula.
Promoting research on terpenes and other naturally occurring compounds released from trees and forest areas into water systems. There is a need to determine the impacts that declining forest health has on naturally occurring compounds released by trees and forest areas that can have negative impacts on water quality and microflora and fauna populations in these water systems.
Supporting a national education program through extension to involve students in hands-on learning experiences with sustainable forestry programs. Such a program could include a web site for students to exchange their experiences and cultural values associated with their forests with other students across the U.S. A pilot project of this design has been developed between extension services in Kentucky and Alaska.
Better nutrition and health
The Food Stamp Program changed significantly with the welfare reform initiatives of the 1990's. Other domestic programs as well, have felt the effects of the devolution implicit in welfare reform. These reforms have mostly occurred in the context of the growing economy, a condition that may shift in the months leading to the 2002 farm bill legislation. As well, the ''bankable'' part of the five-year grace period for most current welfare program participants is running out. In short, there is a possibility for adjustment in the nutrition and food programs as the economic conditions change and as participants transition off the programs—all of which seem to imply increased Federal expenditures.
Page 720 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These food and nutrition programs are now widely used by rural and tribal community residents, and especially by their aging populations. Both make this legislation important to the state universities and land-grant colleges that are in rural states and/or depend on rural constituencies. The foreign food assistance programs (PL 480 and GSM) continue at high budget levels (almost $2 billion). The state universities and land- grants have, to a large extent, not participated in the use of the in-country funds generated by these programs. With the interests of students and their employers in international experience and related education, there is opportunity for gain and more effective use of the resources from these programs.
There are significant research and education activities related to USDA's nutrition programs. The Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program (FSNEP), which uses Extension staff to educate the Food Stamp Program participants, is an example of how CSREES and the state universities and land-grant colleges can cooperate to effectively do the business of USDA.
Issues for the state universities and land-grant colleges include:
Enhancing partnerships between USDA and the universities for nutrition education messages, assessment and research. Enhance support for Extension nutrition assessment and outreach programs and collaboration between EFNEP and WIC education efforts. With block grants, programs are becoming more adapted to state specific needs. Assessment and education programs are needed that can facilitate sharing the lessons learned in one state with others.
Adding emphasis on preventive health care. The state universities and land-grant colleges are poised to develop expanded outreach and education activities in this area via the School Lunch Program and youth programs by using the Extension system.
Collaborating in Community Food Projects. These food projects provide additional opportunity for nutrition education and a major opportunity for supporting the development of local markets and farm diversification. Based on the tremendous success of Community Food Projects, we support an increase of authorized funding from $3.5 million to $15 million annually.
Page 721 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Providing better access to locally grown products for school feeding programs and WIC Farmers Markets.
Researching and developing education programs to determine and influence participation rates, self-selection among the eligible population and how states will support this increasing local responsibility for managing and financing food and related assistance programs.
There are clear opportunities to increase program efficacy and efficiencies by greater collaboration between the universities and colleges, the Food Stamp Program, the Community Food Projects, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (Commodity Distribution Program).
Revitalizing our communities
Rural areas continue to fall behind compared to urban and non-metro areas (CSRA 2000). There is more and more attention given to the economic and other interests of the rural areas in the Congress. The emergence of the Rural Caucus is an example. The last session of Congress saw the introduction of numerous bills targeting the improvement of the economic status of rural America.
Possible ways in which state universities and land-grant colleges can support rural communities include:
Designing and implementing training programs in the utilization of tax credits for rural residents. Tax credits may be an underutilized tool, and there may be unique opportunities with the tax reduction legislation recently signed into law.
Expanding distance education to help remote communities, and reservation communities, develop strategies and programs to meet their telecommunications needs. Extension can expand its efforts to assist small business access to ''e-commerce'' opportunities and global markets. Distance and connectedness are reoccurring issues in the rural economy legislation introduced during the last Congressional Session.
Page 722 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As part of ''block granting,'' many government management responsibilities have moved from the Federal and state level to county and local governments. Most local officials have not had the background or training to manage these new responsibilities. Extension has been actively involved in providing leadership development programs and specific training for these officials. These programs need to be strengthened and enhanced and coupled with a strong research base.
The research base (the new economic geography) for rural development or community vitality needs serious attention. Surprisingly, little is known about the success of various strategies for growth and development in rural economies and their communities. We support efforts to research, educate, and evaluate rural and tribal community development. This could come in a process to reform and reenergize the Fund for Rural America (FRA), or expand the provisions of IFAFS to address these issues.
Conducting research into, and educating rural and tribal communities about improved economic opportunities through natural and agricultural based development such as bioenergy and biomaterials, tourism and amenities promotion and marketing. Conduct research into, and educate the public about new business structures of growers who focus on value-added agriculture.
Initiating place-based development for rural and tribal communities in tandem with economic development activities. For example, fund rural economic development programs to accompany the EPA's Regional Environmental Initiatives.
Developing new models for the universities and Federal laboratories to work together with the private sector, to insure that the results of discovery research are sufficiently captured and developed such that research results can reach commercial development. Many states have developed new and exciting models of collaboration that provide for more effective research and development investments and collaboration.
Page 723 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Expanding youth participation in technology training of rural and tribal community residents.
Research, Extension and Education
In the 1998 AREERA, new provisions were established regarding joint research and extension projects and multistate efforts. We support the intent of Congress to facilitate greater cooperation between research and extension. We support the intent of Congress to facilitate greater cooperation among the states, so that we can better coordinate our efforts and target scarce resources. We support the intent of Congress to enhance and enrich meaningful stakeholder involvement in setting priorities and in program development for research, extension and education. We commend the Congress for establishing the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Advisory Board (NAREEAB) and we recommend its reauthorization.
Technical questions have emerged in the implementation of AREERA on how some of our joint efforts can or should be reported. We believe that most or all of these issues can be sorted out in discussions among the universities, the Department and your Committee staff, which we hope to do in the near future. The bottom-line is that we want to increase the efficiency of our reporting and accounting procedures and to make best use of current technologies.
Opportunities and challenges for state universities and land-grant colleges include:
Establishing program authority for research, extension and education to address critical issues, such as biotechnology and bio-and food safety, that are not adequately addressed in other titles of the farm bill.
Research detection, causes, mechanisms of transmission, interventions and controls, risk analysis, and communication of plant and animal diseases and food borne illnesses that result from microorganisms, toxins, pesticides, and allergens.
Page 724 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Coordinate and communicate with other USDA departments, state and local agriculture and public health agencies, and Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, USEPA, Department of the Interior, Center for Disease Control to share science databases, research publications, and risk assessments.
Develop and implement training and education programs for the prevention of, and response to, outbreaks of animal and plant diseases and food borne illnesses. Develop these programs specific to the needs of the variety of publics on the farm to fork continuum such as consumers, producers, processors, retailers, and the food service industry.
Develop and maintain a national food safety database to track occurrences of outbreaks.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the various programs designed to assure food safety and protect farmers and agribusiness from disease and other threats that increase as a result of increased international commercial and other activity.
Investigate fee-based food safety and farmer protection programs.
Develop education programs to accompany regulatory provisions such as Swine Health Inspection, Inter-state Quarantine, and inspection panels. Develop and implement electronic communications technologies for regulatory programs.
Evaluate quality control systems, such as ISO 9000, as alternatives and/or complements to inspection and regulatory programs.
Establishing program authority for the development of agricultural curriculum, including classroom lessons, experiential learning, and distance learning for K–12 and higher education students.
Establishing programmatic and funding mechanisms that will better enable the universities and land-grant colleges to link to and coordinate with the other USDA agencies addressed in other titles of the farm bill.
Page 725 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Resolving implementation questions between the universities and USDA on reporting and accounting requirements established in the 1998 AREERA.
Expanding extension services' non-classroom youth activities to take advantage of new experiential learning approaches.
Agricultural classroom curricula and degree programs, as well as not-for-credit extension training programs need to be retooled to better prepare our students to compete in a global economy. Students, scientists, educators and practitioners need enhanced opportunities to study and participate in agricultural programs abroad. The 1998 AREERA includes authorization of GASEPA (Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America). This program should be re-authorized and more fully implemented.
State and Private Forestry
The state universities and land-grant colleges could address the following state and private forestry research, education, and extension needs:
Establishing a stronger role for Extension in providing technical assistance in environmental stewardship to forest landowners through an expanded RREA. One component of this technical assistance could be the design, development, and evaluation of a web-based learning initiative, whereby forest owners would gain access to educational materials and programs to better inform their forest management choices. Only 10 percent of all forest landowners have the benefit of professional forestry advice prior to harvest. Thus, the vast majority of timber sales occur without adequate means to minimize impact on water quality, important wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and other environmental issues.
Establishing four regional Forest Research Extension Centers to expand the capacity to research forest ecosystems and address forest issues. This would also be accomplished through an expanded RREA.
Establishing a National Forests Advisory Council to develop strategies and programs to implement the recommendations of the National Research Council Report, Forested Landscapes in Perspective: Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's NonFederal Forests, and the National Coalition for Sustaining America's NonFederal Forest report, A National investment in Sustainable Forestry: Addressing the Stewardship of NonFederal Forests through Research, Education, and Extension Outreach.
Page 726 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Authorizing the eligibility of 1890 land-grant institutions for the Cooperative Forestry Research Program.
Funding Priorities
The Research, Extension and Education Title of the farm bill provides a balanced portfolio of funding mechanisms, including formula funds and competitive grants. We endorse and recommend the continued authorization of this portfolio of funding mechanisms, which makes it possible to address both long-term program needs and short-term, quick response projects. We support and endorse the continuation and enhancement of the IFAFS program and the FRA, funded through the mandatory accounts. We support and endorse the continuation of the programs authorized in this bill and funded through the discretionary accounts. We look forward to working with this Committee and the Congress to determine the best balance between these funding mechanisms, with the goal of sustaining critical Federal investments in priority research, extension and education programs.
As I have stated previously, we are very interested in tightly linking the research, extension and education system to the critical policy issues addressed throughout the farm bill. High priority issues include:
Enhancing production, processing and trade;
Improving targeted market opportunities, at home and abroad;
Developing and applying the next generation of value-adding tools and processes to generate enhanced income opportunities;
Creating new opportunities for biomass, biomaterials and bioenergy products;
Applying the best scientific assessment procedures to assure the consuming public and customers that our food products are safe and wholesome;
Creating new connections and relationships through advanced science and effective education between food, nutrition and the health and well being of all people;
Page 727 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Generating the next generation of environmental management tools and techniques to protect our country's natural resources while producing food and fiber that is safe and affordable; and
Harnessing our science and education system to meet the diverse needs of our rural economies and communities, providing leadership in developing the next generation of leadership skills and telecommunications capabilities.
Improved Linkages. In this testimony, I have stressed the need for increased Federal investment in the agricultural and natural resources research, extension and education system. This increased funding is necessary to support farmers and ranchers, processors, our rural and tribal communities, and the consuming public as they meet the challenges of the 21st century. We recommend that increased investments in research, extension, and education programs can most effectively address critical challenges by more tightly linking with the science and education needs of the action agencies in USDA, so that the Federal agency and the state and land-grant universities can, as partners, better serve the U.S. food, agriculture, natural resource and rural community sectors in the challenging years ahead. We look forward to working with the Committee and your staff to work through the details of these recommendations.
Statement of Jeff D. T. Barcinas
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the land-grant universities and colleges in the U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The College of Micronesia Land-Grant Program is also included with our group. It serves the independent and freely associated nations formed from the former Pacific Trust Territories of the United States: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshal Islands and the Republic of Palau.
Page 728 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to begin by associating myself with the testimony offered by my colleague, Dr. Sam Curl, representing the Board on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). The Territories are members of the Board on Agriculture and we support the Board's policy recommendations. I also support the testimony offered by the 1890 institutions, in regard to the need for increased investments for the minority serving institutions.
LAND-GRANT COLLEGES IN THE U.S. TERRITORIES LAND GRANT COLLEGES IN THE U.S. TERRITORIES
Our universities and colleges became land-grant institutions in the 1970's. We could be called the 1972 institutions, to distinguish us from our colleagues of the 1862, 1890 and 1994 institutions. In regards to general governing authorities, we are classified as 1862 land-grants. With regards to our focus on the needs of minority communities, underserved populations, and our comparative lack of critical resources, we are more like the historically black 1890 institutions and the 1994 Tribal Colleges. However, because each of our territories has a unique set of relationships with the U.S. Federal Government, we face pressing challenges and needs that set us apart from all of our colleagues.
Moreover, there are several commonalities that differentiate and unify our group. First, we are all located in the tropics, and are therefore the only U.S. land-grant institutions that serve a populace in a truly tropical setting. Residing on islands, we are geographically dispersed with vast distances separating us, which stretches the capabilities of our programs. Second, none of the economies in which we exist have reached developmental parity with the 50 States. Third, the populaces we serve have very different cultural and linguistic histories from the 50 States. Finally, we have no elected representation in the Senate and only a non-voting presence in the House of Representatives. We generally rely on NASULGC and the generosity of certain members of the universities in your various states to speak for us in the House of Representatives. We are sincerely grateful for our opportunity to give testimony today. We thank you.
Page 729 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATE MATCHING REQUIREMENTS AND THE U.S. TERRITORIES STATE MATCHING REQUIREMENTS AND THE U.S. TERRITORIES
In the passage of the 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA), provisions were enacted that required the land-grant universities to match Federal formula funds with state-based funding. The 1862 institutions were required to provide a one-to-one match. Since most states provide several times the level of Federal funding to their land-grant colleges, this was not a hardship for most institutions. The 1890 institutions, however, have historically enjoyed less support from their state governments and a one-to-one match was seen as both a challenge and an opportunity. The opportunity was that the 1890's might be able to leverage this requirement into increased state support for their programs. The challenge was that if an 1890 university failed to obtain this match, they could loose even their Federal support. The solution in 1998 was to require that the states ramp-up to providing a 50 percent funding match for their 1890 institutions. The Secretary of Agriculture was allowed under defined conditions to waive this matching requirement at the beginning of the new program.
This state matching requirement proved a great challenge for many of the Territorial land-grants. Under our authorizing legislation, we are considered as 1862 institutions, but the one-to-one match was simply impossible for most of us. As we understand it, language was provided in a subsequent appropriations bill that stated that for the purposes of matching requirements, our institutions in the U.S. Territories would be treated as 1890 institutions. Accordingly, we were required to ramp up to a 50 percent match rather than a 100 percent match. Some of our institutions have been able to meet the 50 percent match; for others it has been a great hardship.
Our potential difficulties are compounded by the 1890 proposal to ramp up their state matching requirements over the next five years to a one-to-one match We recognize that this proposed increase in state matching requirements may help the 1890 institutions leverage state resources. However, the economies of U.S. Territories are generally small in scale and struggling. The probability of receiving additional local matching funds is quite low. The simple fact is that our territorial governments have fewer resources at their disposal than do state governments. Under the current requirements, if no additional matching funds become available, our programs stand to loose one-half of their Federal funds, equaling 33 percent of our base budgets. A reduction of this magnitude would result in severe cutbacks of personnel and services and would jeopardize the integrity of our programs at a time when our communities are in vital need of the new technologies and skills provided by the land-grant system. Quite simply:
Page 730 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We ask that Congress maintain the 50 percent state matching requirement for Federal funding for land-grant colleges in the U.S. territories through authorizing language in the Research, Education and Extension Title of the 2002 farm bill; and
We ask Congress to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the 50 percent state matching requirement for Federal funding for land-grant colleges in the U.S. territories under defined conditions and in response to a petition from a land-grant college in the U.S. territories.
CAPACITY BUILDING
Similar to the Tribal Colleges and the1890 institutions, we have a tremendous need for capacity building and sustained program funding to address the unique needs of the communities we serve. We support competitive grants, but our institutions must have resources and time to build a true capacity to compete at the national level. In the meantime, we must conduct research and education programs designed to meet the unique environments and social conditions on each of our many and varied islands.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
We request the creation of a Facilities and Equipment grant program to enable us to address our unique facilities and equipment needs in the U.S. Territories. This program could be modeled after the 1890 Facilities Grant Program. We recommend authorizing this new program at not less than $8 million per year. This program would assist us in upgrading and rehabilitating the physical facilities of our institutions that have suffered from years of benign neglect.
HUMAN CAPACITY BUILDING
We recommend establishing a Capacity Building Grants Program for the Territorial Land-Grant Universities and Colleges at a funding level not less than $4 million dollars per year, modeled after the 1890 Capacity Building Grant Program. This program will allow the territories to improve the educational attainment of our existing faculty and to attract new faculty. It will aid us in improving the quality of our research, extension and teaching programs for the benefit of our citizens and clientele.
Page 731 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LONG DISTANCE EDUCATION LONG DISTANCE EDUCATION
Last, we recommend creating a Long Distance Education Grants Program for the Territorial Land-Grant Universities and Colleges at a funding level of not less than $4 million per year. Such a program would have immediate impact. For the first time in our history, the territorial land-grants would be able to deliver adequate educational opportunities at an affordable price to people living in very isolated areas. Our institutions have a unique and obvious need for enhanced long distance education capabilities. We need funding support to acquire enhanced satellite and Internet-based telecommunications capabilities. We need funding support to develop program content that addresses our unique geographic, biological and cultural conditions.
LOOKING AHEAD LOOKING AHEAD
Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. We look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the university community as we move through the reauthorization of the farm bill. We urge you to consider continuing your long-term investment in the unique programs and services provided by your land-grant universities in the U.S. territories. Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. We look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the university community as we move through the reauthorization of the farm bill. We urge you to consider continuing your long-term investment in the unique programs and services provided by your land grant universities in the U.S. territories.
For the Directors of the Land-Grant Programs at:For the Directors of the Land Grant Programs at:
American Samoa Community College, American Samoa Community College,
College of Micronesia Land-Grant Program, which includes: College of Micronesia Land Grant Program, which includes: College of Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia, College of the Marshall Islands, Palau (Belau) Community College, Northern Marianas College
Page 732 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
University of Guam, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, University of the Virgin Islands
Statement of John R. Abernathy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for providing this opportunity for the American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable Resources (AASCARR) to submit comments regarding agricultural research. My name is John R. Abernathy and I serve as Dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University located in Lubbock, Texas.
AASCARR is a national organization comprised of more than 50 non-land grant universities across the country. According to information compiled by the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS), AASCARR universities produce almost 20 percent of the U. S. agricultural graduates through agricultural and natural resource baccalaureate degree programs. Several of these universities also offer master of science degree programs and the college of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University offers the doctorate in six disciplinary areas. Collectively the AASCARR universities account for more than 10 percent of the graduate degrees in agricultural sciences. None of these AASCARR institutions is eligible for funding through the Morrill, Hatch, or Smith-Lever Acts.
Several key issues impacting agricultural research which I would like to address today include: research partnerships, development of centers of expertise, and enhancement of competitive grants.
PARTNERSHIPS-LEVERAGING OF RESOURCES
AASCARR universities have created some opportunities to participate in substantive partnerships with other universities and federal agencies, as well as with the private sector to utilize precious federal and state funds more efficiently. Some of these partnerships include:
Texas Tech University currently has ten joint faculty positions with agencies of the Texas A & M System. These positions serve both institutions very well in providing research and technology for Texas clientele.
Page 733 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A key research relationship with USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service) in Plant Stress Research and Animal Issues which involves location of Texas Tech faculty in ARS facilities and ARS scientists located in Texas Tech facilities.
The California State University Agricultural Research Initiative (ARI) is another example of leveraging resources to enhance multi-institutional agriculture research. Last year nearly $5 million in agricultural research projects was awarded to members of the California State University System engaged in agricultural research. The specific issues addressed in this program have included: agricultural literacy, biotechnology, food safety and processing.
The Consortium for Cattle Feeding and Environmental Studies involving Texas Tech University, West Texas A&M, USDA-ARS, Texas A&M System, and New Mexico State University, was formed to serve the cattle feeding industry of the Great Plains.
The Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR) is a coalition between Southern Illinois University, University of Illinois, Illinois State University and West Illinois University to support research and outreach programs for Illinois' food and agricultural systems.
CENTERS OF EXPERTISE
Universities cannot be all things to all people; this is especially true of the AASCARR universities with limited personnel and resources. However, there have been some opportunities for non-land grants to establish specific expertise centers. An example of such a center at Texas Tech University is the Cotton Economics Research Institute that fosters a high level of professional expertise in cotton marketing for which other universities actively seek partnerships. Other examples of these centers of expertise that Texas Tech University is building are: a Center for Research on Animal Production, Food Safety, and Innovation and a Center for Cryobiology.
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPETITIVE GRANTS
Page 734 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The AASCARR universities wish to join numerous other groups in stressing the need for significant increases in agricultural research funds for all universities and research agencies. The need for this increased investment in agricultural research is clear. The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the economic status of U. S. agriculture, concerns about genetically modified organisms and the danger of bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE], to mention only a few issues, demonstrate the national need for increased investment and awareness of food safety and production issues. Further, an increased investment in agricultural research is required to maintain American competitiveness in the global economy.
When research funds have been available on a competitive basis, as they are in the programs administered by the higher education programs section of USDA, the results have been positive and AASCARR universities have proven to be competitive both as lead institutions and in partnering in multi-institutional research projects.
CAPACITY BUILDING
The AASCARR universities have extensive histories of agriculture research, education and outreach, as well as unique approaches and relationships with our communities and states. Many of these universities have a strong regional focus and component in their programs with a large percent of the student enrollment comprised of local residents who opt to stay in their regions following graduation. Yet there have been no federal funds dedicated to the building of the capacity of these institutions Not only do these institutions fill a unique role, but the sizeable number of the graduates they produce merits a federal investment in this segment of agricultural education. Additionally, building the capacities of these institutions strengthens the quality of learning throughout the agricultural education system, as many of the students who graduate from the AASCARR universities seek advanced degrees in agriculture at larger research universities.
RESEARCH, EXTENSION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS ADVISORY BOARD
Page 735 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I would like to address the composition of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board. This board, created by the 1996 farm bill, replaces three previous boards: the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board and the Agricultural Sciences and Technology Review Board. The Advisory Board is charged in part with providing ''customer input in forming the Research, Education and Economics mission area's Strategic Plan and to provide consultations on other FAIR Act legislation.'' AASCARR was represented on one of the Advisory Board's predecessors, the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences. AASCARR institutions request representation on this Board in order to assist the board in developing a fuller understanding and more comprehensive approach to solving urgent agricultural issues.
The universities represented by AASCARR appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in this hearing and to provide testimony regarding our role in conducting research for the agricultural enterprise of the United States of America.
Statement of Daniel Cosgrove
Mr. Chairman, the American Society of Plant Physiologists representing nearly 6,000 plant scientists, appreciates this opportunity to submit comments to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research for its consideration in reauthorization of the Research Title of the farm bill.
My name is Professor Daniel Cosgrove, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and President of the American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP). Changeover of the name of ASPP to the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), to reflect our more diverse membership of plant scientists, will be completed at our annual meeting July 21–25.
Page 736 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current Research Title in effect authorized by the House Agriculture Committee and Congress has proved essential to meeting the increasing needs of Americans and our trading partners for food and fiber. Reauthorization of the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI) in the current title has provided the agricultural research community with a highly acclaimed program that determines awards through a rigorous peer review process.
The National Research Council Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources committee report on the NRI last year strongly endorsed support for this competitive grants program. The NRC committee ''found the NRI to have financed high-quality scientific work within congressional guidelines''.The committee reiterates the extraordinary importance of public merit-based peer-reviewed research in food, fiber and natural resources. In the committee's opinion, past public research and current private activities cannot meet the needs that are being created by population growth, climate change and natural resource deterioration or the challenges related to food safety and nutrition and to the growing convergence of foods and medical research.
The NRC committee recommended that a major emphasis of the NRI continue to be the support of high-risk research with potential long-term payoffs. Much of this research would be classified as fundamental in the traditional use of this term. The NRC committee also recommended a more than quintupling of support for the NRI to better meet the Nation's growing demands on agriculture.
A major conclusion of the NRC committee was that, ''Without a dramatically enhanced commitment to merit-based peer-reviewed, food, fiber and natural resources research, the Nation places itself at risk.''
In addition to the benefits to farmers and consumers that result from the leading research discoveries sponsored by the NRI, increased support for the program would help maintain the strength and vigor of the Nation's agricultural research community. In the competition to attract students completing undergraduate programs majoring in the life sciences, graduate programs related to agriculture in the plant sciences and other life science disciplines must compete directly with graduate life science programs receiving substantial medical research support.
Page 737 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The more than $20 billion in research support awarded by the NIH in Fiscal Year 2001 serves as a powerful magnet attracting life sciences students, some of whom had considered pursuing a career in research related to agriculture. Pursuit of a career in any science discipline is made possible by availability of funds to conduct research. The President's requested increase for NIH for Fiscal Year 2002 is $2.8 billion and the Congress may exceed this request. We applaud Congress for this strong support for medical research sponsored by NIH.
In comparison, the NRI is funded at $106 million in Fiscal Year 2001. Despite the 200 to 1 ratio of disparity in figures between support for the NIH and NRI competitive grants programs, the existence of the NRI offers university students considering careers in agricultural research some hope that they still may be able to compete for grant awards and pursue research in agriculture.
It is not known how future growth in the ratio of Federal dollars supporting competitive medical research over agricultural research will affect recruitment of life sciences students to graduate programs related to agricultural research, but a look at projected ratios could help in predicting this future. Some project that the ratio of disparity in funding for NIH and NRI may grow to 230 to 1 for Fiscal Year 2002. If past research budgets are indicative of future budgets, the ratio of disparity in funding between the NIH and NRI may grow to well over 260 to 1 the subsequent fiscal year. With each increase in the multiple of disparity in support for medical research competitive grants compared to agricultural research competitive grants, the power of the magnet attracting undergraduate students in the life sciences to careers in medical research likely becomes that much stronger.
More than a generation ago, students could enter graduate study in life science disciplines related to agriculture at land grant colleges and receive needed support to conduct research. Reduction in real dollars in formula funds and increasing costs of conducting modern research require scientists at land grant colleges and other educational institutions to win support in the form of competitive grants or in some instances cooperate with interests seeking special federally sponsored grants. Competitive grant awards selected on the basis of merit as determined by peer-review panels results in the best research being conducted. We encourage the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to continue its leadership in support of the NRI.
Page 738 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The science community appreciates the leadership of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee in supporting merit-based research sponsored by the NRI. We strongly urge the reauthorization of the NRI in your considerations of the Research Title.
The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry made a major contribution to strengthening the Nation's agricultural research community with the inclusion of the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) in the current Research Title. IFAFS has provided grants at levels that enable scientists of different institutions and disciplines to work together in addressing important research questions. Priority areas of study in genomics and biotechnology supported by IFAFS will allow plant scientists and other scientists to take new, more effective approaches to addressing problems facing agriculture. ASPP urges the Committee to include IFAFS and IFAFS priority areas of research such as plant genomics and plant biotechnology in the Research Title revision.
As sought by the Committee, increased emphasis on merit review procedures for research has been followed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). The ARS continues to address effectively many important research questions for American agriculture. American farmers and consumers are well-served by the large number of successful research efforts of ARS scientists. Continued support for a balanced research portfolio in the Department including intramural and extramural research is needed to address the many and sometimes devastating problems farmers face in growing crops and livestock.
ASPP supports the request of the National Coalition for Agricultural Research (C-FAR) to double support for agricultural research over five years—a rate of increase averaging more than 14 percent a year. We encourage the Committee to include this goal to double support for agricultural research in the Research Title. The rewards to American farmers and consumers would be much higher than the $2 billion increase over five years such a doubling would bring.
Page 739 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What could be done with this requested increase in funding? In the plant science area alone, we know that extraordinary advances can be achievable with sufficient support and time. Potential discoveries will likely be found sooner with greater support of research. The age of genomics and biotechnology has brought revolutionary new tools to plant scientists to better serve the needs of agriculture. Following this paragraph is a look back to what has happened in agriculture in the past century to offer some guideposts for a look ahead to the new century before us. The look ahead includes projections of what may be expected to be achieved earlier or later in this new century depending upon levels of support. We appreciate the assistance of ASPP Education Foundation Chairman Bob Goldberg, Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and founding editor-in-chief of the widely cited science journal, THE PLANT CELL, for his contributions to this following look back and ahead for plant science and agriculture.
Starting with the year 1900, we find that Mendel's laws of genetics were not widely understood. The tools and knowledge base of those studying plants at the time are now seen as quite primitive. The study of Botany focused more on the classification of species of plants. The study of plant physiology within Botany to learn more of the structure and functions of plants would not emerge as a strong separate discipline until the end of the first quarter of the century.
Despite the modest state of plant science and agriculture in 1900, the ensuing 100 years reaped increases in crop yields in the range of 300 percent. In addition, the number of Americans needed to work on farms to produce food for the rest of us dwindled from one in two people to nearly one in 100.
Along the way, developments in the areas of plant breeding, genetic engineering, genomics, irrigation, use of fertilizers, computers, and other advances helped transform plant science, American agriculture and the Nation itself.
Page 740 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the 21st century, plant scientists predict even more impressive gains—gains for which there is a definite need. In the next 50 years , we will have to produce more food than has ever been produced in the collective history of people on earth. On a world scale, agriculture on a per capita basis is on a decline as we begin the 21st century. Today we have hunger even in parts of prosperous nations like the U.S.
At the same time, the world is near the limits of available land and other resources for agriculture. More environmentally benign agricultural practices and more productive plants will be needed. In addition to demands on cropland for food, there will be increased demands on farmers to grow energy feedstocks. Some plant scientists predict that plants will rival petroleum for the production of industrial chemical products such as polymers, polyurethane, nylon and other materials. New high value energy crops will provide new profitable markets for American farmers who will become less dependent on government subsidies.
Major crops will be modified to make more efficient use of nitrogen, leading to less use of applied fertilizers and a cleaner environment. Dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and other cases of contaminated waterways reportedly linked to agricultural runoff would be addressed through use of engineered crop plants that can make more efficient use of nitrogen.
The lines between agricultural research and medical research will blur as advances in plant science will address nutritionally related human health diseases on a mass public health scale. For example, calcium deficiency is common in the diets of American adolescents, particularly girls, leaving many with less dense bones more susceptible to fracture and osteoporosis later in life. Foods commonly eaten by children will be engineered by plant scientists to contain higher levels of calcium. A number of common mineral and vitamin deficiencies in diets causing various maladies for people here and abroad will be addressed by enhanced foods engineered by plant scientists. Genetically engineered ''Golden Rice'' will contain higher levels of beta carotene which converts to Vitamin A after human consumption. This enhanced rice could prevent 500,000 cases of child blindness annually.
Page 741 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Millions of Americans and many more people overseas have allergies to proteins in widely consumed existing foods such as wheat and milk. ASPP Past President Bob Buchanan of the University of California, Berkeley, is already finding success in laboratory experiments that are eliminating allergens in wheat and milk. He has identified a number of other foods that could be made safer for consumption through this research using biotechnology. Many allergic reactions to foods could be averted through these genetically enhanced foods. High value, allergen-free wheat and other commodity products will be grown by American farmers who will find new premium markets for their products.
Plants have long been a major source of pharmaceutical products. As plant scientists combine use of modern transformation technologies with increased knowledge of plant genomes, many more life saving medicines will be developed. Some of these plant-based pharmaceutical products will take the form of edible vaccines—such as bananas genetically engineered to produce a vaccine for hepatitis B or deadly infant diarrhea.
Genomics will help in understanding hybrid vigor to produce enhanced, higher yielding crops. Plant scientists will learn how to change the size and number of plant seeds and organs. The earliest events controlling plant reproduction will be understood.
Scientists may learn how to engineer plants that will better capture higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for use with the sun's energy in photosynthesis, leading to faster growing plants and possibly an additional harvest season for some crops.
Plants engineered to tolerate higher levels of salinity will help farmers salvage more of their crops in dry seasons. Increased tolerance of future engineered plants to environmental stresses of cold and freezing will be a boon to the horticultural industry and other growers. The Federal Government will experience savings in emergency spending for crop disasters—some disasters that will be avoided through use of new, enhanced plants.
Just as we found in the century past, the advances in the 21st century will transform plant science, American agriculture, the Nation and world. Indeed, this transformation will have to occur because the well-being and even survival of many in future generations will require it.
Page 742 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, thank you for this opportunity to submit comments to the Subcommittee. We appreciate your strong leadership on behalf of farmers and the six billion people of the world who benefit from agricultural research you make possible.
Statement by the American Dietetic Association
Thank you for convening this discussion about opportunities in agriculture research. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) and its 70, 000 members who translate science to consumers daily supports increasing resources committed to research and recommends greater emphasis on nutrition research included in agriculture research regardless of funding mechanisms. We rely on the agriculture research system to produce sound unbiased science that we can use to help the American food system and in particular, the consumer, make wise food and lifestyle choices.
ADA is the largest association of food and nutrition professionals in the United States. ADA members provide a variety of services in hospitals and clinics, businesses, academia, and in private consultation, that improve the nutritional health and well being of their clients and the public. ADA members' knowledge of food, food safety, nutrition and health brings an informed, fact-based and balanced perspective to deliberations on national and global food issues.
The American Dietetic Association believes that research on nutrition, food and the agriculture system are inseparable. Any discussion of agriculture research must include a significant discussion of the interrelationship between food and Americans' health. Current knowledge already confirms that what we eat and how much we eat greatly affects our health and chronic disease risk. It is imperative that government-sponsored food and agricultural research build on that base of knowledge so that we more fully understand the relationships between food, diet and health and can extend the benefits to people's lives.
Page 743 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past several decades, investment in agriculture research has resulted in an abundant low-cost and safe food supply that meets the nutritional needs of most Americans. Now that the goal of undernutrition largely has been achieved, agriculture research can make a valuable contribution to improved health by helping us to define and deliver optimal nutrition. Success requires a thoughtful approach that recognizes linkages throughout the entire agriculture, food and nutrition system.
The challenge for future agricultural research is to maintain yield, efficiency and affordability while improving the availability and market for foods that will provide good nutrition. Gaining that knowledge will require work by nutrition, food, plant and animal scientists, as well as a greater emphasis on inter- or multi-disciplinary nutrition research and education to the American public so that they may apply the benefits of this research to their lives.
Improved nutrition is essential for a strong, prosperous society. The discipline of dietetics recognizes that food, nutrition and health are central to national interest and survival. Today, incidence of obesity and many associated chronic diseases are skyrocketing, and policies affecting food, nutrition and diet have become matters of national concern. Poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyle threaten the Nation's productivity and economic vitality, national security and the overall quality of life of its citizens.
The implications of the trend of over-consumption are enormous. Obesity rates among American adults have increased by 38 percent in the last decade. Currently, more than half of adults are overweight enough to pose a risk to their health. The number of obese children doubled in the last decade, and studies show that one-half of obese school-age children become obese adults. Unhealthy eating and physical inactivity are responsible for 35 percent of premature deaths in the U.S.—or about 1,200 deaths every day. Diet-related diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis lead to lost productivity and staggering health care costs from medical treatment and disability. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), better nutrition could reduce health and other costs by at least $71 billion each year.
Page 744 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The types of nutrition related research questions for the future might cluster around these three central areas: health and behavior, fortification or enrichment, and food safety.
In the health and behavior area research is needed to identify the health benefits of dietary guidelines and food guide pyramid, and to identify effective ways to communicate nutrition messages that result in sustained behavior change.
In the area of fortification or enrichment, we need research to learn how to deliver nutrients that are bioavailable and stable in food products, to identify mechanisms of food/nutrient absorption, to find methods to resolve dietary inadequacies, e.g. folic acid, Vitamin B6, Copper, Zinc and Calcium, and to explore how to best use technology to enhance whole foods.
In the area of food safety, we need a better understanding of mechanisms behind food allergies/sensitivities, better methods to assess allergenicity of novel proteins and the safety of engineered plants, and ways to produce pathogen-free foods. The American public holds government institutions accountable for assuring the quality of food in this country. Policies and programs must work effectively to manage and reduce foodborne risks to human health. The risks from a number of sources—microbiological pathogens, pesticide and animal drug residues, animal disease and other contaminants. It involves the safety of the food supply—consumers having information on the content of foods, the presence of known allergens and the potential impacts of new production and processing technologies such as biotechnology and irradiation. Quality assurance also involves the quality of the diet in affecting personal and national health outcomes.
The public looks to agricultural research to provide critical information from national nutrition surveys to track consumption of commodities, evaluate impact of public health and food assistance programs, assess risks in food supply, measure adequacy of American's diets and track trends in nutrient intake and food patterns. The importance of the national nutrition surveys cannot be underestimated. In particular, food consumption data collected until recently by the USDA has provided neutral reporting of the nutritional status of the Nation and the composition of the foods in the marketplace. The accompanying Diet and Health Knowledge Survey—also now defunct—provided insights on consumer nutrition knowledge, attitudes and food choices.
Page 745 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The nutrition and food component of the general health survey, NHANES, is also a valuable source of information, however is available on a less frequent basis. In the past, USDA's survey, the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, or CSFII, has provided household food consumption data annually in user-friendly data files, included seasonal data, and included a significant number of low-income households in the sample. It is critical that this type of information continues to be available in the future.
Specific examples of analyses using CFSII data include: a study of factors affecting meat consumption in the US, comparisons of teenager and parent food choices, assessment of the impact of food assistance programs, and an analyses of the relationship between nutrient intake and smoking status. These studies help USDA, state and local public health departments and health professionals develop effective public health campaigns to improve diet and health. Assuring that these data will be provided in the future is critical to ensure that we have adequate and up-to-date information from which to make public policy decisions on nutrition-related issues.
ADA views positively the trend toward increased stakeholder input into the Federal research agenda. This focus is critical and needs to continue. The role of stakeholders needs to further expand to include non-traditional groups that represent the increasing interest of consumers in health and well being. The Illinois Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research is a success story to be studied and replicated at the national level. The American Dietetic Association supports the National C-FAR's goal double Federal funding for food, nutrition and agriculture research over the next five years.
As this Committee works to establish a useful and meaningful Federal food and agriculture research agenda, we hope that the Committee will first:
Evaluate the current and desirable level of funding for human and nutrition in the USDA research system. During this process, Congress should avoid the ''either/or'' mentality when considering either the type of research or the funding mechanisms. Intramural funding ensures that we have an adequate research infrastructure while extramural and competitive funding insures that new ideas are explored.
Page 746 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Evaluate the national nutrition monitoring survey methodologies and the impact of proposed changes to the system on the data that will be available in the future, in particular on our ability to evaluate the nutritional intake of populations at risk (e.g. those enrolled in food assistance programs, elderly, children, etc.)
Encourage the continued use of peer review. Professional associations such as the ADA are sources of information and expert reviewers for this process.
Address how nutrition can be integrated into research on every aspect of the agriculture system from the soil, crops, processing, storage, marketing, distribution and the resulting impact on the Nation's health.
In summary, government must play the critical role in human nutrition research. Since 1977, responsibility for nutrition research has rested with USDA. However, human nutrition research has received a small portion of total funding, as greater focus has been directed to production and processing issues, rather than consumer needs. New and exciting research shows promise, including the development of new technologies to improve the nutritional composition of foods, behavioral research to better understand what motivates consumers to eat right and exercise, and genomics research to learn how genetic differences may create individualized dietary requirements to reduce disease risk. The ADA concludes that these and other areas demonstrate the need to substantially raise the level of funds directed to the study of food and human nutrition.
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and our 30 member colleges that comprise the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, we thank you for this opportunity to share some background on our institutions and land-grant related programs, and to outline our requests regarding the reauthorization of the research, extension, and education title of the farm bill.
Page 747 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This statement covers three areas: (1) background of the 1994 Tribal College Land-Grant Institutions, (2) an outline of each of our authorized programs, including illustrations of some current projects, and (3) proposed amendments that the 1994 Institutions are seeking during the upcoming reauthorization of the farm bill.
I. BACKGROUND ON TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Today, almost 140 years after enactment of the first land-grant legislation, Tribal Colleges and Universities, more than any other institutions, truly exemplify the original intent of the land-grant legislation. The first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring education to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. The tribal colleges fit this definition well, as they are truly community-based institutions.
The Tribal College Movement was launched in 1968 with the establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College, in Tsaile, Arizona. A succession of tribal colleges soon followed, primarily in the Northern Plains region. In 1972, the first six tribally controlled colleges established the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) to provide a support network for member institutions. In 1994, the tribal colleges made a significant step toward greater participation in the Nation's higher education system, when American Indian reservations became the last lands under the American flag to receive land-grant funding under the Department of Agriculture. This historic and long overdue recognition occurred through passage of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act (P.L. 103–382). Today, AIHEC represents 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities, 30 of which comprise the list of 1994 land-grant institutions. Our colleges are located in 12 states, begun specifically to serve the higher education and community development needs of American Indians. Collectively, they serve American Indian students from over 250 federally recognized tribes.
Tribal colleges offer primarily two-year degrees, although in recent years some institutions have begun to offer baccalaureate and graduate-level degrees, and all have articulation agreements to allow a seamless transition to a four-year institution. The vast majority of the tribal colleges are fully accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies. Tribal colleges serve as community centers, providing libraries, tribal archives, career centers, economic development and business centers, public meeting places, and child care centers. Despite our many obligations, functions, and notable achievements, tribal colleges remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in this country. For example, 24 tribal colleges receive their basic operating funds or ''core funding'' under Title I of the Tribally-Controlled College or University Assistance Act, through a full-time American Indian student enrollment formula. Although authorized at $6,000 per full-time American Indian student (ISC), in fiscal year 2001 these 24 colleges are receiving just $3,840 per full time Indian student to finance their operating budgets. The initial appropriation in 1981 was $2,861 per ISC; that equals a per ISC increase of just $979 in 20 years, not factoring in inflation. Most of the 1994 Institutions are located on Federal trust territory; states have no obligation and in most cases, do not fund the tribal colleges. In fact, most states do not even fund our institutions for the non-Indian state resident students who attend our colleges despite the fact that non-Indian enrollment at the tribal colleges averages 20 percent.
Page 748 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, one in five American Indians live on reservations. As a result of two hundred years of Federal Indian policy—including policies of termination, assimilation, and relocation—many reservation residents live in abject poverty comparable to poverty found in Third World nations. Through the efforts of the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, American Indian communities are receiving services they need to reestablish themselves as responsible, productive, and self-reliant citizens. It would be tragic not to expand the modest investment in, and capitalize on, the human resources that will help open new avenues of economic development specifically through enhancing the tribal colleges—land-grant programs, and adequate access to information technology.
We see our land-grant status as a key to enormous educational and economic possibilities. We hope the Subcommittee will continue to support this legislation and will work with us, as we become more fully integrated partners in the Nation's land-grant system.
The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 authorized four tribal college programs: (1) an annual extension grants program designed to compliment not duplicate the existing Indian reservation extension agents program, the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level was $3,280,000; (2) an annual endowment payment the corpus of which remains with the U.S. Treasury, the annual interest yield recently distributed among the 1994 Institution equaled $1,141,821; (3) an annual ''Equity Grants'' program, which allocates approximately $50,000 to each 1994 Institutions; and (4) a $1.7 million capacity building grants program, which has never been funded.
With the 1998 passage of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act (AREERA), a fifth tribal college program was created, authorizing the 1994 Land-Grants to conduct research, in cooperative agreement with 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions; the initial two years of funding (fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001) combined, was $1.5 million for this competitive program.
Page 749 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When these limited funds are allocated among the 30 tribal college land-grant institutions, it is evident that ours is a very modest program. Yet, until passage of the 1994 legislation we were excluded from the land-grant system entirely. We are thankful for what we have; but like this Subcommittee, we are looking toward the future and hope to build a better system.
II. RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE 1994 LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS
(a) 1994 Extension Program: As 1994 Land-Grant Institutions enter into partnerships with 1862 Institutions through extension projects, recent years have shown impressive efforts to address economic development through land use. Our extension program illustrates an ideal combination of Federal resources and tribal college-state institution expertise, with the overall impact being far greater than the sum of its parts. These programs have grown in idea and scope since they were initially implemented in fiscal year 1996. One challenge has become evident—the current single year competitive grants process is a very inefficient way to administer what have developed into promising programs with multiyear applicability. Any extension specialist hired is faced with extreme job insecurity. This mode of funding impedes the employing quality program designers and administrators with the necessary commitment for truly successful ongoing programs. These one-year competitive grants also affect contracting for services, facilities, and supplies, which cannot extend beyond the Federal fiscal year of the grant. A non-competitive funding mechanism needs to be established to give these programs the financial stability they have earned. Some examples of the innovative extension programs currently funded at 1994 Institutions include:
The College of Menominee Nation (CMN) in Keshena, WI has devised a program to strengthen the sustainable economic development potential of CMN's service area. This one-year project, utilizing the strength and resources of each individual community, will train a minimum of 210 participants in areas related to entrepreneurship. Project activities include needs assessment training, expanded outreach activities, conducting short-term courses, developing a model for strategic economic development plans, and project evaluation. The project builds on the college's unique and successful relationship with its surrounding communities and utilizes innovative technology and decision-making approaches to design, implement and evaluate the training.
Page 750 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in Cloquet, MN, through an activity intent on promulgating the wise stewardship and use of valuable water resources, is sharing advanced technology with local high school students by developing and distributing an in-depth environmental analysis of the physical and biotic quality of a major freshwater river ecosystem. The project includes collaboration with the Minnesota Extension Service and 22 area high schools. Benefits include the introduction of students to applied science research, interpretation, and education as well as providing needed resource information to environmental professionals and the general public.
(b) Native American Endowment Fund: Just as other land-grant institutions historically received large grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, these funds assist the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions in establishing and strengthening academic programs in such areas as curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery, and to help address our critical infrastructure issues. The endowment installments appropriated for the Native American Endowment Fund remain with the U.S. Treasury; only the annual interest generated from the fund is disbursed to our 30 land-grant colleges. The latest interest payment distributed among the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions totaled $1,141,821.
The following is an example of the type of project that these interest payments fund:
Sisseton Wahpeton Community College in Sisseton, SD, has teamed their equity grant funds with their share of the interest yield from the 1994 Institutions' endowment to remodel the college's kitchen for the development of a food service/food safety laboratory and curriculum. The goal of the program is to prepare students to manage a modern food service operation including receiving, storing, preparing, cooking, holding, and serving foods. Attention to food safety, including the prevention of food borne illness, is a top priority of the program. This project is designed to work in cooperation with the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Indian Health Hospital.
Page 751 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(c) 1994 Institutions' Educational Equity Grant Program: Closely linked with the endowment fund, this program provides each 1994 Institution $50,000 annually to assist in academic programs. Through this modest appropriation Tribal Colleges have been able to support vital courses and planning activities specifically targeted to meet the unique needs of our respective reservations. Additional funding is warranted to address the severe shortage of American Indians in the wide array of agricultural professions. Some examples of agriculturally based education programs include:
Little Priest Tribal College in Winnebago, NE, is collaborating with the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska to develop and implement a program of scientific field experience and research of its tribal lands to include plants, animals, and water. This program concentrates on aquatic ecology and water quality. Little Priest Tribal College has hired a botanical/environmental instructor to design the syllabus and oversee the mapping of the ecological composition of reservation lands. Participants will conduct field experiments, analyze the data gathered, and present their findings to the Tribal council and the community. The long-term goal of the program is to graduate tribal members with associate degrees in environmental science so that they can determine the best uses of their own reservation lands and maintain their natural resources for future generations.
In 1998, Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, KS, earned accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to offer a baccalaureate degree in Environmental Science. This new degree program was implemented in the 1999 Fall Semester as a part of the outgrowth of previous USDA land-grant support through the 1994 Education Equity Grants program. The program offers academic training grounded in a philosophy that respects tribal values and traditions and addresses the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives through inclusion of tribally relevant issues. A majority of science-oriented students at Haskell have made long-term commitments to pursue the baccalaureate degree because of the program's strength of holistic education and cultural sensitivity. The program is focusing on capacity building through faculty development, updating and refining science equipment and instruments, and increasing recruitment and retention efforts, which are key to continued success.
Page 752 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other Tribal Colleges have started courses and programs in the areas that include natural resource management, environmental sciences, horticulture, forestry, nutrition, and buffalo production.
(d) 1994 Research Program: This research program, authorized in 1998, is vital to ensuring that tribal colleges become full partners in the Nation's great land-grant system. Many of our institutions are currently conducting applied agricultural research projects to meet their communities' needs. Yet finding the resources to conduct this research is a constant challenge. This authority opens the door to new funding opportunities to maintain and expand the research projects begun at the 1994 Institutions. However, the current level of funding, which if averaged is just $25,000 per college annually, is grossly inadequate to conduct and maintain scientifically credible research.
Some examples of the first programs to be funded under this new authority include:
Turtle Mountain Community College in Belcourt, ND, in partnership with North Dakota State University, has launched a project to assess the risk of mosquito-borne Western equine encephalomyelitis (WEE) infection to horses and humans on the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation (TMCR). Through collection and examination of both adult and larvae vector mosquitoes from throughout the reservation, this research will determine the spatial distribution and the proportion of WEE vector species on the TMCR that is infected with the virus. The results will be published in the Journal of Medical Entomology.
Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, MT, has begun a project to re-vegetate rangeland infested with invasive plants. The projects goal is to provide a sustainable and successive method for cost-effectively managing rangeland dominated by invasive plants and noxious weeds. This study will test a practical framework for developing successive weed management strategies on rangeland, develop cost-effective and reliable techniques for establishing desired species in a single pass, and enhance the understanding of population dynamics during grass establishment. Techniques developed will have important implications and may provide new technologies applicable to all rangeland restoration projects. Results will be submitted for publication to professional journals, presented at meetings and on field tours to reservation ranchers, Tribal, cultural, and political leaders, and to natural resources professionals.
Page 753 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other research projects at the 1994 Institutions include soil and water quality projects, amphibian propagation, pesticide and wildlife research, range cattle species enhancement, and native plant preservation for medicinal and economic purposes.
III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EQUITY IN EDUCATIONAL LAND-GRANT STATUS ACT
During the 107th Congress reauthorization of agriculture research, extension and education programs, within the Department of Agriculture, the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions respectfully request the inclusion of the following amendments to our authorizing legislation. For the reasons outlined above we request increases to our authority levels and legislative remedies to challenges that have surfaced in the 1994 Institutions' programs as indicated in Amendments A-C below. Amendments D-F are basically technical in nature.
(A) Increases/Changes in Authorization Levels
Equity Grants: $100,000/per institution (currently $50,000/per institution)
Endowment: ''such sums as are necessary'' (currently $4.6 million)
Extension: $10 million (currently $5 million)
Facilities: $10 million (currently $1.7 million)
Research: ''such sums as are necessary'' (same as is currently in place)
(B) Non-Competitive Funding for Extension Programs. As earlier stated, the current 1994 extension programs are competitive, one-year programs. This hinders the 1994's efforts to find qualified people to implement and administer these much-needed community extension programs due to the tentative nature of the project and therefore, any extension position. We ask that these grants be made non-competitive thereby allowing the programs that have been started to really take hold and flourish. We believe the current extension authority may afford the USDA the latitude necessary to expand these grants from annually funded programs to multiyear grants. However, we request the Subcommittee support this request for multiyear funding and include some clear direction to the USDA to implement a multi-year, non-competitive extension program for the 1994 Institutions.
Page 754 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(C) Eligibility to Compete for Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program. The current definition for eligible participants excludes the 1994 land-grants as well as the land-grants in the U.S. Territories. We request that the definition for eligible institutions to participate in this competitive grants program be changed to include all current members of the land-grant community. This could be accomplished by simply restating the eligibility language as ''All Federal land-grant institutions, and colleges and universities (as defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103))'' or by citing the legislation that awarded land grant status to the excluded institutions, which for the 1994 institutions would be ''land grants as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).
(D) Expansion of the Accreditation Requirement Language to Include the 1994 Research Program. A provision was added with the enactment of the 1998 AREERA Act requiring 1994 Tribal College Land-Grant Institutions be accredited, or making progress toward accreditation, by a nationally recognized accrediting agency to receive funding under 534 (Equity and Extension Grants) and 535 (Facilities) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act. Because the 1994 Institutions' Research program (536) and our accreditation requirement were both enacted as part of the 1998 AREERA Act, accreditation is not listed as a requirement for the new research program. We request that the accreditation requirement be expanded to include 536 to correct this oversight.
(E) Change the Cited Definition of Indian Student Count (ISC) to Simplify and Streamline the Process for Distribution of the Interest Yield from the Native American Endowment Fund. All 30 land-grant tribal colleges divide 40 percent of the annual endowment yield equally. The other 60 percent is distributed based on Indian Student Count (ISC), which is a count of full-time equivalent American Indian students. The current law requires that the ISC be calculated using the method outlined in the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. Since 25 Tribal College Land-Grant Institutions, funded under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act, are already required to submit an ISC for distribution these funds, we request that the definition of ISC be changed to that in Sec. 2(a)(7) of the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act. Data collection from the remaining five 1994 Institutions would be simplified, thereby, streamlining the process and allowing us to provide the required ISC data to the USDA in a much timelier manner.
Page 755 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(F) Update the List of Names of 1994 Land-Grants Institutions to simply reflect any name changes the colleges have officially undergone since passage of the original Act in 1994.
IV. CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to share some history of the Nation's 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, some of our success stories, and our requests for the upcoming reauthorization of the farm bill. We believe that tribal colleges represent enormous, untapped potential for the U.S. agricultural research, education, and extension systems. We appreciate your interest and support of the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to bring better educational, agricultural, and economic opportunities to Indian Country. Indeed, we must be committed to working together if Indian people are to continue to experience the educational and economic success that the first tribal colleges were created to achieve just over 30 years ago.