SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
88–313 PDF
2003
2003
REVIEW OF THE CONSERVATION TITLE OF THE FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JUNE 4, 2003
Serial No. 108–7
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
agriculture.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
Vice Chairman
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
DOUG OSE, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
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
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota
MAX BURNS, Georgia
JO BONNER, Alabama
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
STEVE KING, Iowa
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
DEVIN NUNES, California
——— ———
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas,
Ranking Minority Member
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
JOE BACA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
ANÍBAL ACEVEDO-VILÁ, Puerto Rico
ED CASE, Hawaii
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
FRANK W. BALLANCE, JR., NORTH CAROLINA
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
MIKE THOMPSON, California
MARK UDALL, Colorado
RICK LARSEN, Washington
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
Professional Staff
WILLIAM E. O'CONNER, JR., Staff Director
KEVIN KRAMP, Chief Counsel
STEPHEN HATERIUS, Minority Staff Director
ELYSE BAUER, Communications Director
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska
Vice Chairman
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
ADAM K. PUTNAM, Florida
MAX BURNS, Georgia
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JO BONNER, Alabama
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
STEVE KING, Iowa
——— ———
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
Ranking Minority Member
ED CASE, Hawaii
FRANK W. BALLANCE, JR., NORTH CAROLINA
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
ANÍBAL ACEVEDO-VILÁ, Puerto Rico
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RYAN E. WESTON, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement
Witnesses
Curtis, Marc, producer, Leland, MS, on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association and the USA Rice Federation
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Detrick, Terry, vice president, Oklahoma Farmers Union, Ames, OK, on behalf of the National Farmers Union
Prepared statement
Moseley, James, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
Faber, Scott, policy analyst, Environmental Defense, Washington, DC on behalf of the Environmental Defense, National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Land Trust Alliance, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and the National Wildlife Federation
Prepared statement
Sutherland, Scott, director of governmental affairs, Ducks Unlimited, Washington, DC
Prepared statement
Vail, Nita C., executive director, California Rangeland Trust, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sacramento, CA, on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, Southeast Dairy Farmers Association, and Western United Dairymen
Prepared statement
Watkins, Rosemarie, senior director of congressional relations, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC
Prepared statement
Wilson, Bill, first vice president, National Association of Conservation Districts, Kinta, OK
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
McGovern, Hon. Jmes P., a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, submitted statement
REVIEW OF THE CONSERVATION TITLE OF THE FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development, and Research
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Moran, Osborne, Putnam, Burns, Rogers, Holden, Case, Ballance, Peterson, Etheridge and Stenholm.
Staff present: Ryan Weston, subcommittee staff director; Dave Ebersole, Alan Mackey, Anne Hazlett, Callista Gingrich, clerk; Kellie Rogers, Elyse Bauer, Jon Hixson, Claire Folbre, and Anne Simmons.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research to review conservation technical assistance and the implementation of the Conservation Title of the 2002 farm bill will come to order.
I'm very pleased that we're here today to have a hearing on one of the very most important topics I can think of. It is hard to believe that it has been 1 year since the farm bill was signed into law. The 80 percent increase in conservation spending provided last year is a fantastic feat for which I thank all of the subcommittee members, Members of Congress, and the conservation supporters out there. You should all be extremely proud. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. The time has come for the subcommittee to become active and aggressive in its oversight responsibilities. The implementation process has proven that not everyone can agree on congressional intent, or on the meaning of certain provisions in the law.
It up to this subcommittee to keep the implementation process on track. Another famous Oklahoman who I'm extremely fond of quoting, Will Rogers, once pointed out that ''Memories are what you get when you put down the good things you ought to have done, and you leave out the bad things you did do.''
I want this subcommittee's legislative history to show that we did do what we ought to have done, and we will make sure that the implementation process is fair and equitable.
USDA has taken enormous steps to implement all 10 farm bill titles. Employees in the local and State offices and here in Washington have been putting in many hours to get the rules and regulations written, and to get the necessary training out of the way so that producers can sign up for all of the programs.
Today's hearing will focus on two main issues: technical assistance for farm bill conservation programs and implementation of the Conservation Title.
I have asked all of the witnesses other than the Department to answer three questions in their testimony:
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(1) Is the current funding for technical assistance sound and equitable?
(2) If not, what would you propose as a solution to the funding system?
(3) Does your solution result in a score for the agricultural baseline?
I think that I would be remiss if I did not point out that every piece of testimony we received in advance for today concluded that the current technical funding is not equitable.
The farm bill made it quite clear that the Commodity Credit Corporation should be used to fund technical assistance for USDA conservation programs. CCC is not an endless supply of free money. The Congressional Budget Office score for the farm bill accounted for technical assistance for all programs from both CCC and appropriated funds.
After the farm bill was signed into law, it did not take long for legal opinions and legislative language to start changing the intent of the 2002 farm bill. OMB and GAO could not agree on where funds for technical assistance should or even could be expended. The most aggravating factor, and I say this with the greatest of caution and thought, the most aggravating factor is that of all the Department lawyers and the Member and staff meetings during the conference negotiations on the farm bill, I was not aware of any concerns regarding technical assistance language being raised by the Department during those meetings. And I would note that either my good friends at USDA perhaps were not paying sufficient attention to the language when it was being developed, or maybe we need to have a course in communication between the attorneys at USDA and OMB so that they can communicate with one another regarding how legislative language should be interpreted.
Legislative language was included in this year's omnibus appropriation bill that prohibited USDA from using appropriated accounts for technical assistance for farm bill programs. Then the supplemental bill included language that prevented the Conservation Security Program, CSP, from paying for technical assistance for conservation programs other than itself.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The combination of legislative changes from Congress and differing legal opinions created a terrible situation. When USDA went forward with CRP and WRP signups, the working land programs such as EQIP and Farmland Protection and GRP and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives programs were forced to pay for the technical assistance to implement CRP and WRP.
This decision resulted in 15.5 percent, or $107 million of EQIP being taken out of the EQIP program to pay for technical assistance costs for CRP and WRP and other programs. Literally 27.5 percent of farmland protection money, 17.2 percent of GRP, 28.7 percent of the WHIP funds were shuffled around—or are shuffled around, I should say, to provide technical assistance to other USDA programs.
CRP and WRP are not paying one cent of their own or other programs' technical assistance provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
All conservation programs should be implemented this year, but not if some programs have to donate their funds to other programs' technical assistance. CRP and WRP are acreage programs that will not lose funding if they are not implemented this year. But the other working lands programs do have yearly dollar amounts that need to be expended.
We need to correct this problem, and while this situation was created by numerous events, it is up to Congress and the administration to get it fixed, before millions of dollars are redirected at the expense of four programs. This idea Mr. Holden and I have come up with in the form of H.R. 1907 is very simple. Programs can only pay for the technical assistance costs associated for their specific program costs. In other words, EQIP could only pay for EQIP technical assistance, Farmland Protection only for Farmland Protection technical assistance, and so forth. We both feel that it will be important to include WHIP in any final version of our bill. As I mentioned before, the Senate has already walled off CSP. Therefore, there should not be an objection to walling off the other working lands programs too.
This hearing is also the subcommittee's opportunity to determine how well the implementation process is going for all of USDA's conservation programs.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to the Department's update on the rules regarding EQIP, and GRP, and CSP. And I would note that EQIP is a program vitally important to my home State of Oklahoma. It provides farmers and ranchers the opportunity to address the most pressing needs placed upon them by environmental regulation.
The Grasslands Reserve Program may be the newest, and yes, I would hope the best chance, to ease pressure on CRP enrollments and to prevent grasslands from turning into farmland or housing developments. And The Small Watersheds Program, the WHIP Program and CSP also garner a great deal of interest I thing among all the subcommittee members, and I do look forward to today's hearing. And with that, I turn to my ranking member, Mr. Holden for whatever comments that he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing. All of us worked very hard during last year's farm bill to secure conservation funding, and we need to make sure both programs are implemented and funded as we intended.
The Conservation Title of the 2002 farm bill dedicated over $17 billion for conservation, an increase of 80 percent. We funded the most significant programs in order to preserve farmland and to improve water quality and soil conservation on working lands. We addressed environmental concerns and sought to make conservation a cornerstone of agriculture for producers in all regions.
It is unfortunate we are now witnessing a decrease in financial assistance for key programs we worked very hard for. During the farm bill debate, one of the major issues discussed was regional inequity of farm bill programs.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a Member from Pennsylvania in the Northeast, most farmers in the region do not benefit from traditional agricultural programs. They simply do not grow traditional crops. Conservation programs offered them a way to stay in farming. The substantial increase in EQIP and Farmland Protection was a signal to those regions that as we approach this turning point in agriculture, we are not going to relive the unfair practices of past programs. Yet here we are again as it currently stands, major parts of the country are in the position where they will not see money pledged to them by authorizations in the farm bill.
A major factor in this inequity revolves around the issue of how to fund technical assistance for conservation programs. Our intent was to allow for farm bill programs to pay for themselves. However, due to different interpretations of the law and congressional rewriting, we are now in a situation in which major programs are paying for others. EQIP will decrease by 15 percent, Farmland Protection by 27.5 percent, WHIP by 28.7 percent, and Grassland Reserves by 17.2 percent. Pennsylvania alone stands to lose approximately $3.6 million from those decreases in EQIP and Farmland Protection.
We must make sure implementation reflects intent. It was never our intent to have key conservation programs act as donors for others. We need to correct this problem as soon as possible.
I hope the groups representative can help us find a fair and equitable solution, and I look forward to hearing about the progress we are making on other programs.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this very important hearing.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair thanks the ranking member for his insights and his statement, and all of his effort on this mightily important project.
Are there other opening statements from Members? Seeing none, the Chair now turns to the first panel, and I would like to invite the Honorable Jim Moseley, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture to offer his insights and opening comments. Mr. Deputy Secretary.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. MOSELEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. MOSELEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first of all like to submit my written statement for the record.
Mr. LUCAS. So ordered.
Mr. MOSELEY. Thank you.
I also want to acknowledge Jim Little, who is the Administrator of Farm Service Agency, and Bruce Knight, who is the Chief of the NRCS, who is with me here today, and I know we are going to get into a number of technical questions. And these gentleman have been on the front line every step of the way in the implementation of this farm bill, and so we are looking forward to them helping us with many of these technical questions.
It is a pleasure to be here with you today in front of your committee to highlight and improve the Department's performance in the implementation of the conservation provisions of the 2002 farm bill.
We all understand the significant change that the 2002 farm bill had on conservation efforts in this country. I frequently stated in my remarks to others that we needed to fully understand the responsibility that we have now as a Department in doing it right, or the opportunity that will have been lost if we do it wrong.
Quite frankly, doing it wrong is not an option. The burden of those mistakes would weigh on our shoulders for many years into the future. None of us expect nor would we tolerate a diminished effort to carryout the landmark provisions that that piece of legislation brought forward.
Clearly over the past several farm bill iterations since 1985 we have seen improved opportunity in conservation efforts. And as a farmer myself, and one that was around here as a member of the team at USDA when 1990 farm bill was passed, I recall very clearly the expectation that piece of legislation had in terms of improving conservation in this country. But even as good as that was, it did not come close to what was possible in the 2002 legislation.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think predominately, because we have finally included the entire landscape that farmers work with, by including the working lands and livestock operations of this country in the conservation equation, that was a monumental step forward for those of us and production agriculture who intuitively knew that the opportunity for improvement had to rest there as well, in balance with other programs like CRP and Wetlands Reserve, if we were going to complete the conservation picture across the landscape.
To the credit of Congress, the 2002 farm bill did not disappoint us in that regard. But we come to this moment of high expectations with somewhat of a challenge. The resource needs are identified, the conservation targets and objectives have been determined. The Agency and the Department along with those of the constituency that we serve on the land are ready; are willing to begin.
We have identified a new issue; how to pay for technical assistance for implementation that is necessary to meet those needs and expectations. That has become a question that has caused a lot of consternation, and it is a challenge, as you know, for the Department.
Allow me to spend just a little bit of time and offer some history and an explanation. In the 1996 farm bill, conservation programs that had traditionally been funded in USDA's discretionary accounts became funded in the CCC mandatory accounts instead. In addition, a cap was placed on the amount of funds that could be spent under those mandatory accounts. We were limited at the 1995 spending level, or about $36 million.
That cap soon proved to be too limiting, and it was subsequently raised to 56 million. Now this was the pool of money that was available for the administration of several conservation programs, but predominantly for technical assistance of the mandated farm bill related programs.
It was subsequently recognized to be a limiting factor as we moved through administering the 1996 Conservation Title, and the Congress attempted to address the issue in 2002 legislation, and they believed that they did. However, the language as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, was subject to legal interpretation.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GAO determined that the section 11 cap no longer applied and technical assistance could be funded from mandatory funds, in other words, from the CCC.
However, the Department of Justice considered the language on behalf of OMB and the Department and determined it did apply, and that only existing discretionary fund authorities could be used. For the Department, the final word had to be the DOJ ruling, just like the parliamentarian is the final rule for Congress.
At that point, the Department was faced with funding. The technical assistance from discretionary budgets until the 2003 appropriations bill, which addressed and reversed the legal findings of DOJ. But then it forced all of the technical assistance into four specific accounts; EQIP, GRP, WHIP, Farmland and Ranchlands Protection. Unfortunately, the largest program and account was the newly authorized levels of spending for EQIP, and it potentially bore the heaviest burden to pay for these other programs.
This then sets the stage for where we find ourselves today; providing funding for all conservation programs authorized in the farm bill, from just those four programs, one of which, is the very popular EQIP Program, that has a heavy demand from the farm population out there that it serves.
In response to that challenge, the President's 2004 Budget approaches this issue by establishing a dedicated technical assistance account specifically for farm bill implementation only, though we recognize that Budget must make its way through the appropriations process.
We attempted this same methodology in 2003, and we were unsuccessful. The bottom line is that I think that everyone here can identify the challenge, and I think we can all agree on the need for some clarity on this issue.
And our goal, Mr. Chairman, today is to work with you and the members of this committee to try and find that clarity. It is in the interest of farmers, ranchers, landowners that we all come forward to resolve the better way to accomplish the objective of getting as much conservation as possible on the land as what the public dollar will permit.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are looking for every possible way to accomplish this including streamlining our administrative process in FSA and NRCS, using the best available information technologies, and bringing in line a array of third party technical service providers to assist us in delivering the conservation objectives of the 2002 bill.
For example, in the current fiscal year, we believe we will be able to show a 3 percent reduction in technical assistance and EQIP due to measures being implemented currently. But I think it is an important point to make; we are on a journey and we have not arrived yet at the destination. I firmly believe that more is possible.
So, Mr. Chairman, we thank you again for calling this hearing and giving us the opportunity to present the existing challenges we have in terms of getting conservation on the ground. Challenges are simply opportunities and we're close and we are ready to work with you, because we know we can all do better at this than what we currently are. I know that you and I share common objectives of making sure that this is done well and responsibly, and as cost effective as possible.
So again, we thank you for the opportunity to be here, and look forward to trying to address the questions that you may have. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and you are so clearly right. In the 2002 farm bill, conservation, those of us in this room who care about preserving the natural resources of this great Nation, prevailed in a way above and beyond anyone's expectations. But alas, that was one of the battles in the long war. And the question of how to implement, how to move forward in the most expeditious fashion, is what we face today.
Clearly, I personally support efforts to modernize the Department in its delivery of services. It is not the world of slide rulers and hand held transits of 1935 anymore, mimeograph machines and multiple copies of paperwork, and we need to do everything we can to facilitate the efficient delivery of those services in the most cost effective fashion.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I would note that from my perspective of working on this issue with my colleagues on the committee for a good long time that I am painfully aware of the challenges you face, the language and the omnibus appropriations bill and the supplemental; all of those extra burdens and challenges placed upon you. But I must ask, of course, while those two bills allowed USDA to go forward with CRP and WRP signups, as I understood the language, it didn't require that that be the case.
My first question is these programs would not lose money in this year because they are acreage based, not dollar based, if they are not immediately implemented. Would it not be better to slow down to stop that process until we can sort out the technical assistance issues? If we go forward, money that is diverted from these other programs, for instance, to implement the CRP and WRP signup, would be money lost to those programs since they're dollar based.
Why did USDA decide to go forth with CRP and WRP signups before trying to work with us to create a permanent fix to this technical assistance funding problem?
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a fair question, and it is one in which we did not limit ourselves in deliberation about this particular issue. But we wanted to go forward, as we pointed out, with a comprehensive approach to conservation, and we now have, of course, the working lands component, and we are very, very committed. I think that is a significant step forward.
But we have to look at the entire plate, if you will, of conservation programs. And there was a significant interest out there to engage and enroll individuals in a CRP Program for this fiscal year. We also have a number of CRP contracts that are going to come up for renewal, and we wanted to give those people out there an opportunity to be able to accomplish that. And so it was, I think, the collective thought and consensus of the two gentleman sitting on either side of me who sent forward I'm sure a decision memo and made recommendations that we move forward. And it was in that consensus spirit that the Secretary considered all of these issues, and decided that it was important indeed for us to move forward. And we recognize the challenge that that creates in terms of the potential loss, and I think the number is something around $30 million for this CRP signup and technical assistance.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That clearly is going to come out of those four programs. But it was a matter of trying to bring forward a very balanced approach to conservation. I have to say that we are not certain when this issue is going to be resolved and taken care of. And so, as we looked at all of the evidence, it seemed important for us to move ahead with the CRP signup before the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. LUCAS. As I understand the funds and the programs in the effort, even if we were not going forward with a general CRP signup, wouldn't continuous and the CRP acres programs accepting enrollment process, wouldn't that burn up a substantial portion of that money anyway?
Mr. MOSELEY. Yes, and I may have to turn to Bruce to help me on this particular issue, but my sense is that those existing CRP contracts that are coming up for renewal would not fit into that category. Jim, do you want to help us on that?
Mr. LITTLE. The continuous signup would require a good bit of the technical assistance. It is probably about half of what the regular general signup would cost, but yes, there are substantial costs related to the continuous and the CRP because they require a lot more extensive plans on behalf of the NRCS to develop those plans.
Mr. LUCAS. Two quick questions and I will turn to my colleagues. Number 1, how many acres of general CRP do you envision enrolling this year if you move forward?
Mr. MOSELEY. The number I have heard is $2.8 million.
Mr. LITTLE. We have $2.8 million budgeted for it, but that does not mean we will accept the full $2.8 million acres. The final decision would be made by the Secretary, based on the environmental benefits to the cost, and there is no determination then as to how much we will actually accept.
Mr. LUCAS. One last question. And on a couple of occasions in the last decade, haven't we done temporary one year extensions, when issues were uncertain on funding or program availability? Don't we have a track record of doing that temporary one year extension?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LITTLE. Yes, we did, but I believe that that was legislated, and we did not have that authority for this year.
Mr. LUCAS. We may improve H.R. 1907.
I now turn to Mr. Holden.
Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and your pledge to work with us through this problem that we are facing with the technical assistance.
I understand that the conservation operations account has been used in the past for some technical assistance. Since we now have a prohibition on using that account, how do you intend to expend the $119 million that has been allocated?
Mr. MOSELEY. It is related to how we take a look at the conservation operations historically, and the amount that has been considered in the past that would normally go into what we would define as farm bill implementation. Bruce?
Mr. KNIGHT. With every one of our programs, including the CTA accounts, we have a backlog of work to be done. When we had the prohibition and the fire wall now that prevents us from utilizing as much of the CTA account for farm bill delivery as the administration position would advocate, that then puts the other work in the CTA account that is in the backlog higher up into the workload analysis, and that work then starts getting done. And that was a step that would not have been done, had we been able to take it and utilize it for the farm bill accounts. So in Pennsylvania, you would see more work on planning that is associated with non-farm bill work, more work with the community development work in Pennsylvania. Those are the kinds of things that are done through the CTA account, the planning that are not associated directly with the farm bill cost share programs.
Mr. HOLDEN. OK, thank you. And how is the Department implementing the regional equity language in the farm bill, the minimum $12 million for each State?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KNIGHT. This has been one of the more challenging provisions to implement in the farm bill. The language, as I recall, stated that we were to look at each of the States if it received less than $12 million historically and provide priority funding for them early in the fiscal year. Then look again at the amount of money they had in those allocations and how that had been invested by April 1, and if it wasn't going to be utilized and spent, then sweep that back and allocate it to the other States. Unfortunately, due to how late the budget circumstances and appropriations worked out this year, we were past the April 1 deadline for putting it out, sweeping back before we could even begin to get into implementation.
We have been working very carefully on the regional equity issue to ensure that our program implementation, the allocations that we use for each of the programs, fully take into account the criticisms and concerns that have been raised, that they may have previously been inordinately biased towards traditional commodities versus minor crops, and be able to find that full balance. And we are taking that into consideration. We will continue to take that into consideration as we move ahead with program implementation.
One of the other challenges that really made regional equity very difficult is that it is tied directly to the technical assistance issue that we find here today. The way the language was written, regional equity focuses on the same four programs that are now the donor programs for technical assistance. So as there were fewer dollars to allocate from those donor programs, that in turn meant fewer dollars to go out to those States that were expecting greater allocation, due to regional equity. Thank you.
Mr. HOLDEN. One last question, Mr. Chairman, that the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture asked me to raise here this morning. In Pennsylvania, CRP has not been very successful, but the CRP program has been very popular. Governor Rendell is proposing to expand CRP to the Ohio River Basin and add 16 counties and 65,000 acres through the CRP Program. Will FSA support this effort, and can we just amend the current agreement that we have?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LITTLE. We would be more than willing to work with the State of Pennsylvania on any CRP agreement, whether we would extend what we have got, we would be able, I believe, to expand it to include the additional 16, as long as it is within the existing parameters. If we had to create another agreement, we could do that as well. But we would be more than willing to work with the State.
Mr. HOLDEN. OK. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair now turns to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling this hearing, I think. I have got a couple of questions, but I just want to raise one thing. I brought this up before, but you folks are new and I don't think I brought it up to you.
These contracts that are expiring in some areas where I have been out and actually seen the situation, we are requiring them to plow down their existing habitat and plant different varieties in order to get the maximum number of points. And in some cases we are plowing down perfectly good CRP, it doesn't have any weeds and is some of the best stuff I have ever seen, and we are requiring them to plant varieties that are I guess politically correct or whatever that won't grow in that area. And we are actually making a worse situation. And I have talked to your predecessors about maybe trying to give the local people some kind of discretion in dealing with that, because we are not really serving conservation and wildlife in some of these limited areas. And I just would hope that you would take a look at that because there is still some problems out there.
I am trying to figure out how this is all going to work. Apparently the way you put this forward is that you have just taken 15 percent out of every program, and that is how you allocated the money or something. In order to fund what you asked for in the budget this year?
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KNIGHT. Roughly, you do. Sir, you do take 15 percent out of each of the accounts, as well as a portion of the funds from the conservation technical assistance account in order to be able to resolve this issue.
Mr. PETERSON. My question is these programs have a lot different complexity in terms of technical assistance, so it would seem to me that some of these programs are going to use a lot more technical assistance than others. So why are you taking 15 percent across the board? It just seems to me you are not allocating it. If that is all we are going to do, that doesn't seem to have any logic to me. I don't know. What is the reasoning behind that?
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, the suggestion I think you are making is that, for example, EQIP tends to run a little bit higher in terms of its technical assistance support than some of the other programs. And so the question is how would you vary that from 15 percent? Because you have EQIP taking a higher TA, do you raise the percent that is taken from EQIP because it has that, or do you actually reduce the amount that is taken from EQIP because it does have a higher percent? And you try to provide that balance, and I can't answer the question specifically for the Chief, in terms of the rationale. But I do think that it is a question that we would have to spend a fair amount of time thinking through, about what is the best alternative here if you don't use across the board 15 percent and would need some guidance on that.
Mr. PETERSON. Well, and if this did go through and it was successful, does that mean that the CRP has 15 percent less acres that can be enrolled? Is that the affect of it, or how does that work?
Mr. KNIGHT. The administration proposal that was offered for 2003 and is included in the 2004 budget analysis does not use a percentage decrease for either WRP or CRP. And that is one of the things that is very much in keeping with the issue that the chairman has been raising, about how do we find a way to make sure each program pays its fair share.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON. OK. So the 15 percent is not coming out of CRP or WRP?
Mr. KNIGHT. No, sir.
Mr. PETERSON. OK, I misunderstood. I was just reading this one part of your testimony. And that is because the Department of Justice said you can't do this, or——
Mr. KNIGHT. Sir, that had more to do with the challenges of how you offered a proposal, getting around the acreage, the uniqueness of those programs being an acreage-capped enrollment versus a dollar enrollment.
Mr. PETERSON. The House bill at one point had a pot of money for technical assistance. I don't know if you are aware of that. And it was taken out because some groups opposed it that now apparently are for it. I just wanted to say that I think we had an opportunity to try to fix this, at least we tried, as the chairman said, a lot of people didn't really step up at that point and deal with it. And now we are in this situation, so hopefully, we will come up with a solution that will be fair and supported by everybody.
Mr. LUCAS. Fair and equitable, Mr. Peterson.
The Chair will now turn to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Ballance.
Mr. BALLANCE. I want to yield to my ranking member, but I will go ahead. I do have one question. It is a little bit technical. Mr. Moseley, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture is now trying to get matching funds from the State for farmers who enroll in the Farmland Protection Program. The USDA took $27,591,000 from the Farmland Protection Program and redirected it elsewhere. Of course, I believe those people who received that were the programs all over the country. The fact is, the money comes from the FPP represents a double hit for farmers in North Carolina. And what I want to know is what criteria were used by USDA when that decision was made to take those funds?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, I think what you are suggesting here is the reason why we are in this hearing today. This was caught up in this issue of more programs supporting the funding for all of these other conservation programs. And as Chief Knight has pointed out, the decision was made to split that evenly amongst the four programs in terms of percentage. And yes, it is a reduction in each of those four programs in terms of what is available out there to producers, and that is our concern. Our answer to that is to look at each of these programs, and as we have presented in the 2004 budget proposal, to assess each program of conservation in terms of the technical assistance required. So we get to a solution on this, I think we should fix the issue that you are raising, if I understand the question correctly.
Mr. KNIGHT. Excuse me. If I could expand a little bit on the Deputy's statement, we had a real quandary in determining how to make those allocations this year, given the fact that we had four donor programs. We had first tried to do an equal formula, taking off of each of them. That would not come up with enough money without having taken some of the programs actually below the levels that were authorized or allocated the year previously. So we had to use what were the best estimates of how to make sure that you didn't take any of the programs below their previous accounts, recognizing full well that we were going to be leaving people disappointed with each of those four programs. And so you see a difference in the percentage if you compare by percentage, and that is always a dangerous comparison, but you see a different percentage comparison when you compare Farm and Ranchland Protection programs to WHIP to Grasslands Reserve, as well as EQIP.
Mr. MOSELEY. Let it be noted the Deputy can always be corrected.
Mr. BALLANCE. Just one follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Of course, if I am out talking to my farmers who may feel like they got hit a little bit, do you have a recommendation what I can tell them, how they are going to get fixed?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, one of the solutions is, as we move through this fiscal year as we see some extra funding that is available as a result of not spending it in technical assistance, is to sweep those accounts, and put that back in the pot or the pool of money available and try to address that issue for 2003 in that manner. But I think the thing that we are here today about and what we are really looking forward to is a better and longer term solution to this whole question. And more in line with, quite frankly, the solution that has been brought forward here by the administration's proposal for the 2004 budget.
Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair turns to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Secretary Moseley, thank you very much for being here. I particularly appreciate the extension of the CRP signup, very much a Kansas Farm Bureau and Pheasants Forever issue at home and appreciate the extension from May 30 to June 13.
A series of questions until I run out of time, some of which we have talked to you about, or most we have talked to you about and expressed a willingness to work to address. One of the most common questions asked when I am in the district or on the phone is after folks have been to the FSA offices, a concern about signup of CRP acres that were in the program prior to 2000, and then remained in grass after that. Apparently you are not considering that a conservation use, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I wondered if there is a solution or if there is a reason it should make sense to me?
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, quite frankly, I think that is a good question. I am going to turn to my left and listen to this answer very carefully.
Mr. LITTLE. This is an issue that we have just realized is it does put a lot of farmers into a predicament, and it is one that we recognize is an issue, particularly for those contracts who just recently expired prior to 2000. We have been meeting with both the House and the Senate staffs in trying to really understand the issue completely, and we are working through the process internally to determine if there is any action that we can take. But we are aware of it, we are working with the staff to try to see what can be done.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. It actually seems to me that this is behavior we ought to reward not penalize. People who participated in the CRP Program, left their land and grass after it is not re-enrolled, and now come back to re-enroll and are told that that is not a conservation practice, which obviously was at one time and should be, it seems to me, today. Reminder that if you make changes, which I hope you do, you got a deadline, a signup deadline issue as well for those individual landowners.
Another CRP issue dealing with coming out of the CRP Program and base acres being maintained, the question I think arises for CRP that was enrolled from 1996 to 2001, which will come out during this farm bill, are farmers are being told that they will lose their base acres.
Mr. MOSELEY. It was my understanding that that had been addressed and that that was not the case, but I am going to have to turn to Jim.
Mr. MORAN. What we have been told by our farmers is that if they maintain their base or payment acres on land enrolled in CRP that are on contracts that are set to expire, and some of the land has been in the program for 12 years. During that same visit, they are told that if they enroll the land during the 1996 to 2001 period, the base history of that land will be lost when the contract expires.
Mr. LITTLE. Our intention is that those acres would not lose their base. What we have been telling producers is that if they sign up under this new program, we have no guarantee on what the next farm bill might have in store. So any base that expires between now and 2007, we would maintain that base. But we can't guarantee what the new farm bill is going to look like, so we cannot guarantee any base beyond that.
Mr. MORAN. I will explore this with you further. Another CRP issue, incidental grazing. Apparently we can graze, and I think Mr. Johnson has indicated a willingness to work with us on this issue. But you will allow grazing, incidental grazing of post-harvest crops, the stocks. But if we are grazing our wheat and there is incidental grazing of the grass terraces under continuous CRP signup, that is a violation. It seems to me, we ought to be able to make the grazing of wheat treated similarly to the grazing of corn stocks.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. Right.
Mr. MORAN. Does that make sense?
Mr. MOSELEY. Yes, sir. That is an issue that just recently has been brought to our attention, and we are going to take a look at it to see if we can provide relief for those winter seeded crops.
Mr. MORAN. Grassland Reserve Program that Mr. Knight has been cooperating and trying to be helpful with us, is this program going to be available nationwide? How will the funds be distributed, and is the signup still scheduled for June 16?
Mr. MOSELEY. We are going to go nationwide. As you indicated, the Chief and Administrator have been working on this program for some time. We have taken a lot of comments, a lot of questions from the outside, and we have been working very closely with those individuals to make sure that we get this program exactly as it needs to be to serve the need that is out there. It will be, when it is released, a nationwide program. I don't know that the signup date is locked in yet. Is that correct, Bruce?
Mr. KNIGHT. It is. The signup date has not been finalized.
Mr. MOSELEY. But I can assure you that we are working as diligently as we can to make sure that that particular program is out there, because we realize that there is a significant amount of interest on behalf of those who may participate in that program in it, so we want to make sure that it is there and available for them as soon as we can possibly get it there. So we want to do it, but we want to get it right. And that is the issue here, and I think we are to a point where we are there.
Mr. MORAN. I appreciate that. We look forward to working with you, as we try to explain what we think right is. And I appreciate the effort that you all have made in implementing a number of conservation programs. When Under Secretary Penn was here, I complimented him on the efforts in the farm bill and its implementation, and I appreciate the efforts that you and the staff across the country are making, and we look forward to working with you. Thank you for your testimony today.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair now turns to the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
Mr. CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I represent the rural areas of Hawaii, all of the agriculture in Hawaii. And our concerns tend to focus very much on regional equity. I am looking at what I understand at least to be the allocations, noting that the allocations for Hawaii are somewhere in the range of $3 million total, if I am not mistaken, if my information is correct. And that it is in the face of what I understand to be a fair number of unfunded applications from the prior year, as well as in specific areas such as Wildlife Habitat, where I think we have one of the largest unfunded application acreage-wise of the entire country, which reflects the fact that we have a significant endangered species problems and we certainly have the same endangered farmlands as the rest of the country. What explains that allocation, or allocations of similar States, that are significantly kind of below the median, even when you take into account acreage and devotion of portions of the State, the farmland? And then let me just throw it all on the table for you.
Farmland,ranchland actually has no allocation. And there's about seven locations that don't have any allocations, zero allocation for 2003. What explains that? I don't think that is a matter of no applications, but it is, I guess I would like to know it. And then finally, is one of the possible explanations just outreach, just advising people of the availability of the programs, or is it your feeling that you are doing everything you can and should be doing to get the word out about these programs? And is that in any way related to really the primary subject of the hearing, the technical assistance programs?
Mr. MOSELEY. Let me respond to that to start with, and then I am going to have Bruce explain the process, I think there is 30-some factors or so that goes into the decisions that are made there. And I think it is a very objective process, and it was designed to be objective.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First of all, I have been in your fair State and realized—have been on the ground and met with some of your producers, and I do realize the significant resource issues that are there. And so I understand the concern that you share with us today about trying to meet those needs there in Hawaii. In terms of outreach, I suppose we could always be criticized that we don't spend enough effort and time sharing with every producer, landowner out there what the provisions of these programs are. At the same time, and I am going to kind of look at this from a farmer now, which is where I come from. I think the Department has made significant strides in terms of making available to the public out there, to the person that has some interest in these programs through the Internet technologies, through openness with NRCS staff at the ground level, programs, educational programs, and so forth. I know that if you go to any County Fair, State Fair, any gathering of that kind in the country, you will see NRCS there, and they have the whole range of program explanations available. And so I think we have done a lot in terms of outreach. Can we do more? I suppose we probably could. The issue is how much are we going to invest in that, what is the most efficient way to reach those individuals? And we are encouraging in a significant way, because it is every cost effective where people have the availability to try and access through the Internet technologies, because it really is a system that works very well. But I am going to have Bruce explain to you in some detail here the State allocations and perhaps that will help address the questions that you have raised.
Mr. KNIGHT. Each of the programs have their own allocation formula. In the case of EQIP, some 29 factors that go into that that take into account the resource degradation needs, the land area, the amount of area under cultivation in the case of EQIP. Have a different set of formulas in the case of WHIP, another set of formulas in the case of the Farm and Ranchland Protection programs. It cascades down through each of the programs.
In the case of the overall funding for Hawaii, from 2002 to 2003, Hawaii received a 42 percent increase in its allocation, which was a significant jump and quite a bit larger than some other States. But as I look at what I know as far as an existing backlog for Hawaii, it would continue to have a not insignificant backlog for the programs. Your understanding of the WHIP Program appears fairly accurate in that Hawaii is a State that has a large utilization of WHIP in probably the top 10 States as I peruse it very quickly.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we would be very willing to sit down with yourself and your staff and go through the allocation formulas in detail and look at how we make sure that we are taking care of things for Hawaii.
The last point I might make, as the regional equity provision was constructed, it only bears on four programs and doesn't take into all of the programs that are part of conservation, including the CTA account, which is the account from which we would do much of the outreach work. And so it is very significant to understand that additional efforts on outreach wouldn't show up in the current formula and calculation for regional equity.
Mr. CASE. Thank you very much, and I will take you up on your offer to sit down outside this committee hearing to go over Hawaii's issues. Thanks.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair turns to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here this morning.
Mr. Secretary, I have noticed in USDA's notice of availability of funds, EQIP's ground and surface water conservation provisions is only being implemented in 17 western States. Can you share with us, if I am correct on this, any indication as to when or if the eastern half of the United States is going to be allowed to participate in this program? Because you just talked about EQIP and talking about regional fairness, and I thought maybe it would be a good time to raise that issue.
Mr. MOSELEY. Yes, and we appreciate that. And I am going to let Bruce handle that detailed question.
Mr. KNIGHT. The first year we implemented the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program was in 2002, and it was part of the special additional funds that came from 2002, as a result of the congressional action of the farm bill. At that time, we only implemented it pursuant to the language in the report language. Those States that were under the Ogallala aquifer , which was the real impetus for that. In pursuant to the direction and feedback we received, we expanded it now to the 17 western States that were roughly most impacted by drought, in the drought that we are coming out of. And we have a real need right now to save as much water in 2003 as we possibly can in order to make sure that we are able as we are recovering from those droughts—and some folks are still very much in them. As we are recovering from those droughts, ensure that we have adequate stream flows for the fish and wildlife. That we have adequate water resources to maintain irrigation in the economic viability in those communities, as well as adequate water resources for those communities. And that was why the decision to make that this year, only on 2003, we are quite cognizant as we move along with this program that we need to look beyond just the arid West to the water scarcity problems nationwide, including the scarcity problems that you have in the humid East, which may not just be about drought, and drought recovery, but about a expanding population base competing for those limited water resources. So we will continue to look at how to expand that program.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the meanwhile, every practice, every water efficiency practice that we do under the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program, is also eligible for funding under EQIP. The Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program is a special program within the larger umbrella of EQIP. And so a State in its prioritization process, the State Technical Committee in any State at this time can determine to allocate some of its money towards irrigation efficiencies, water efficiencies, all of those sorts of things. So even though the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program is not available in every State, the practices that would be funded in it are available in each and every State in the Nation.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank you, and let me go back to my original question. You gave me a good, broad answer, but you didn't answer my question. You said you can take some of the funds they have now. I am talking about the funds that are allocated for this purpose. And given that the Southeast has been through a horrible drought over the last several years, Northeast and previous years existed, my question was if and when?
Mr. KNIGHT. I would be very willing as we go through the—we will be reviewing our allocation formulas this fall and be very willing to take a look at how to make any further expansion decisions at that time, as we go through the allocation formulas themselves.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I would like the opportunity to sit down and discuss that, because I think that is an important issue as we look at agriculture all across the country, and certainly the southeast has been through some very tough times. I might say being part of that, over the last—really 3 out of the last 4 years. We hope that it has been broken now with all the rain, but there is no guarantees. So I would hope we would——
Mr. KNIGHT. I was in North Carolina yesterday, sir, and nobody was complaining about not enough rain.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Now they are trying to get in the fields to plant. You know, one or the other.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One final question, if I have a little time, Mr. Chairman, is that currently the administration is posing to fund technical assistance, we have talked about here, through a 15 percent cut in funding on the dollar, limited conservation programs as the transfer of the money from the conservation account plus new money that comes on top of that. And let us assume that Congress will agree and those things happen. My question to will be when the Appropriations Committee, which they tend to be prone to do, decides that they are going to make cuts in these spending accounts, how do you foresee the remaining part of money for technical assistance being divided among the various programs? Because we do our part, but they always tend to be the 800-pound gorilla.
Mr. MOSELEY. That is the reason why the effort is going to have to be on our part, and we hope on your part to try to make sure that the Appropriations Committee does understand the very difficult situation that we are in. I am sure that they have their valid reasons. I am also sure that if we sit down and if we work through this and talk about it, that we can come to a resolution on this because it truly is putting the Agencies in a box and it is very difficult for us to continue to operate under the circumstances. That is the reason why the chairman felt strongly that we needed to have this hearing, and why we were more than willing to come up and make sure that we illuminated these issues very clearly.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I was just to an FSA office on Monday, and I can tell you they are under tremendous pressure, and I got an earful.
Mr. LUCAS. Yes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I just shared with you part of it. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman from North Carolina is entirely right, and it is one of those things I believe to be an ongoing responsibility of this committee. We worked hard, we built a good farm bill. We met all of the funding requests from all of the different entities within the Department and without the Department. We did our work, now as authorizers, we have a responsibility to shed enough light on the process that some of our friends in other areas may be a little timid about ignoring our good work.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one question?
Mr. LUCAS. I was going to point out to the Secretary that I thought that that was a relatively painless round of questioning, and I would assume his schedule would permit us to have another round. So let us just inquire a little bit more of our friends.
And in that area and having the privilege of the gavel at this particular moment, let me ask the Secretary the following. The technical assistance account will not, of course, as we have discussed here, be possible if the prohibition on the CO account is not lifted. So for just a moment, Secretary, provide us with a little insight. Is the Department discussing this issue with our good friends, the insightful folks on the Appropriations Committee? And/or are you discussing the possibility of finding funding sources other than the Working Land programs? That is a nice, wide open question. It should be an interesting answer.
Mr. MOSELEY. Yes, I know. And I am going to ask for backup here very quickly. But the fact is we are very well aware, and quite frankly, sir, your initiative to hold this hearing has stimulated this issue at this point in time, and we fully recognize. Because we are going through our 2005 budget process, and we would like to get this resolved so that we don't have to deal with this 2005, 2006 and 2007. So we will very shortly initiate some discussions with the appropriators, and this is an issue that it is difficult clearly, but we need to just sit down simply and talk with those individuals, and make sure that we do understand the difficult situation we are in. And I have to have some confidence and faith that if we present it very clearly and there is an understanding of the difficulty, that we will be able to come to some kind of resolution. So we will be engaging with them, as I am sure that you will as well, to try to make sure that we do present the case very clearly.
Mr. LUCAS. Just in case we together cannot enlighten our friends on the Appropriations Committee, you are discussing among yourselves all possible alternatives, I would hope, for ways to fund these programs reviewing every conceivable option?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. Yes, and Bruce, do you have any further light that you can shed? He says no, OK.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Secretary, I am curious about what the Department's opinion is of Mr. Holden's and my bill H.R. 1907? I know the committee has requested an executive comment on the bill and that has not been forthcoming yet. I know you are a very busy bunch of folks down there, but can you share any insights?
Mr. MOSELY. Well, as we look at the bill and compare side by side with our 2004 budget process, what you are laying out on that bill and what you have suggested to us here is that you want each conservation account to pay for its own technical assistance, and that is the same direction that we are taking at the Department. So I would say in that regard, we are extremely compatible in the concept of the bill, and that provides a great groundwork for us to then work forward from.
Mr. LUCAS. Because clearly, Mr. Secretary, as you have heard comments from my colleagues who are very concerned about resources being available in different parts of the country, we had a heck of a time fine-crafting a very, I think, balanced bill in the very beginning, and the gyrations that this process in reallocating funds has put us all through is just causing torment all over the countryside. And when our rank and file constituents out there in the countryside, for instance, in programs like EQIP, come to the real realization there is a dramatic reduction in the number of dollars available.
We had a lot of lovely discussions in front of the FSA offices for all of us as Members of Congress. I would just note one more time, before I turn to my colleague, Mr. Holden, that I truly believe that it is important that this subcommittee focus on its responsibilities of oversight, working to make sure that a good piece of legislation is implemented in the fashion that it was intended to be implemented. And that we pursue that, whether it is legislatively, or across the floor on some other piece of legislation, to make that happen. We have to, I think, work hard to take a different track than has been traditionally been the legislative process, at least for the last 20 or 30 years in this body, of good work being done, and then undone by a 1,000 little cuts over the life of a bill. And that is not just the farm bill, that is all pieces of legislation.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, I appreciate your time and your insights, and I turn to the ranking member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden.
Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, just a few final questions on the CSP Program. What is your timetable for implementation, and does the fact that you have transferred money for technical assistance out of other programs for CSP mean that landowners and operators will be able to signup and receive checks before the end of the fiscal year?
Mr. MOSELY. I think we are going to be right on the margin. The most recent discussions I have had with the Chief here, and since he is sitting here, he can either confirm or deny this. First of all, let me say that this is a very complicated, complex piece of legislation. Tremendous opportunity, also some risk. And we have taken extraordinary measures to collect public input on this, and my understanding is that we had some 4,500 comments that were made on this piece of legislation, or the rules as we were trying to lay them out. So we have moved slowly, cautiously to make sure that we get this one right. And I know that there is some concern out there when is it going to happen, but I will take responsibility for that because of the opportunity that this piece of legislation presents to us. Now I can't—I am not sure what exact point of the process we are in, but Chief Knight has—and I have been talking about this and my understanding is that by August or September we may be able, depending on, of course, other folks and their clearance process, we may be able to get something out there. That would be the hope at this point in time, and I would ask Bruce either to confirm or deny what I have suggested.
Mr. KNIGHT. In the case of the Conservation Security Program, we went out with a—because it is an entirely new program, we are really venturing into new areas. We went out with what was known as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. And we had 15 some questions that we sought comment from the public on, and we are currently in the process of evaluating that. We had 700 individual replies that were submitted. When you take 700 replies, look at all of those answering 15 questions, you get into 4,500 or so comments as a result of that. But we are evaluating those. We are very close to the process of having completed that evaluation, being able to take and transfer that now into the rulemaking process. We will then go out with a proposed rule this summer in very short order, seek comments on that, finalize that rule with every intent of being able to meet the timeline that the Deputy has laid out before you. Thank you.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. The Chair now turns to Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should have asked this question different the last time when I was trying to get at this. If this bill that has been proposed by the chairman and Mr. Holden passes, it apparently takes us back to February 20, prior to the 2003 appropriation bill. And what impact would that have on this process if this passed, and you had to abide by it? Does it change what you allocated for the States, and would it have some impact on the 26th signup? Would it somehow or another limit the acreage that you could bring into the signup?
Mr. KNIGHT. As most of you know, I was, in a prior life, a lobbyist, and I learned the dangers of predicting the outcomes of the legislative process. So your question, sir, causes me a great deal of trepidation. There is a challenge associated with the legislation in that it would require the funding, make sure that it comes from each of those appropriate programs. In the case of EQIP, Farmland Protection, WHIP, we have fairly healthy reserves and I think we may be able to manage appropriately, depending on when in this process a piece of legislation would come through. The real challenge lies with the legislation as it is currently drafted on the impact on CRP and WRP, because we are—FSA is in the implementation stage of CRP, we are in an implementation stage of WRP. And that, in turn, has a challenge there. But I am very confident that knowing that, as you move forward with any legislative fix, those sorts of things would be taken into consideration, as you worked on the language itself.
Mr. PETERSON. But can you—I mean, right now you are talking about taking some money from the general fund and using that to do this. But if that was eliminated, and I guess what I am getting at is, do you have the authority to reduce the acreage in CRP and WRP if that is the only way that you can do this, or do you not have the authority? That was what I was trying to get at. I mean, in other words, take the money out of there and thereby reducing the amount of availability in the future?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, I am, first of all, the——
Mr. PETERSON. It is limited by acres, not by dollars. So if you take dollars out of there, I guess what I am trying to ask you, do you then have to reduce the acres to make up for those dollars or not?
Mr. MOSELEY. The answer is, I guess, I just simply don't know. It is an interesting question; one that I think we would have to spend some time exploring. Of course, the limit on the CRP is statutory, but the actual decisions that we make about how much acreage we may signup is driven by dollar availability.
Mr. PETERSON. Right.
Mr. MOSELEY. It is a question that——
Mr. PETERSON. You don't have to answer this right now. But the other issue is how much of it will come out of the continuous and how much would come out of the general. We still have a considerable amount of continuous authority there that has been kind of set aside that has been a concern to some of my constituents. So you don't have to answer right now, but I guess I am just—if this actually happened, I am trying to figure out exactly what impact it would have on CRP and WRP. That is what I was trying to get at earlier with my question.
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, I think that is a reasonable question that he wouldn't——
Mr. PETERSON. And the other—before my time runs out, the other thing, apparently you have allocated $106 million to the—under what you did here on your April 26 announcement to CRP, according to this sheet I have got. Is that right? But when I look at what the technical assistance was for CRP in 1998, according to the staff here, it is $48.2 million in 1999, with $67.6 million in 2000. It was $32.8 million, and in 2001, it was $29.8 million. And we had some signups during that time, so I am curious as to why it is $106 million now versus these other numbers which are like half or less than half of that?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KNIGHT. The numbers you see today, sir, are the estimates that we have based off of actual costs. The fact of the matter is at that time, there was a practice underway that had the costs for several of the farm bill programs being absorbed within the CTA account or the CO account. And we are now in a position where we are coming forward to you with actual cost numbers. We had to move to these actual costs in order to be able to get reasonable cost control underway, in order to be able to bring the cost of delivery for CRP and every one of the programs down.
And so now we have these numbers from which we can do as a baseline and be able to bring additional costs lower. The $106 million that you see that we have allocated for the technical assistance costs for CRP would be the absolute high water mark for this year. We would already anticipate from what we have learned, and we have made many changes, both within FSA and NRCS, that we think are going to generate considerable cost savings that may exceed what we anticipate. In that instance, we will actually spend less than $106 million. Whatever that actual amount is on TA we will be able to estimate that mid to late summer. We will then sweep those accounts and bring that money back, ask to have that converted to financial assistance and be able to allocate that to the—back to the donor programs.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. The bottom line I think remains, Mr. Peterson, if we don't take action, the custom that will be established in the process of using Working Lands programs to fund CRP and WRP will move forward, and before very long, they literally will be sucked dry of all of their resources. So this is something that must be addressed.
And with that, the Chair is very pleased to turn to the ranking member of the full House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Texas, for whatever comments or questions he may have. Mr. Stenholm, sir.
Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for scheduling this hearing today and for all of your hard work, and the other ranking members in ensuring that all of the efforts we undertook over the last 2 years in crafting a Conservation Title are not frustrated. I have looked forward to today's testimony, but I am a little disappointed in terms of the solutions or lack of solutions put forward by some of the witnesses you will hear later today.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also would have thought that groups following the farm bill would have learned their lesson. There isn't any additional money out there to fix this problem. Remember what happened to the new hope for conservation? The Conservation Security Program which was meant to be operated as an open-ended funding? Since we kept up the political pressure and said we really needed a Disaster Assistance Program, we finally got it, but at what price? A limitation on the spending of the CSP and a potential short-changing of conservation funding for years to come. Now we are going to have to work out some compromises ourselves and take care of this problem. That may involve some actions that aren't particularly liked by everyone involved in this debate. However, we, meaning all of you here to testify today, as well, owe it to the landowners and operators that we represent to carry through on that promise we made in the farm bill to ensure that all conservation programs included in the farm bill can be carried out.
I thank you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I have one question that I want to ask of Deputy Secretary Moseley. What do your projections for workload for the conservation technical assistance not involved the use of any farm bill programs show for the coming years? Are there really that many folks who come into our offices anymore asking for assistance that doesn't involve a mandatory funded Conservation Program?
Mr. MOSELEY. There are still demands upon NRCS that is beyond just farm bill implementation. I am going to ask Bruce to explain those in some detail, but my understanding just personally at the ground level living in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, and making observations is that our local zoning for example requires everything that happens in that county to have some soils work done. And NRCS is the resident expert in terms of soils, and so we as then a citizen, a resident of that county will engage with the NRCS Office to acquire that information. As a farmer, that makes perfect sense, but of course, when you are in the fringe areas of Lafayette and you are into building construction and so forth, those individuals needs soils information as well. They need it for design, construction. They need it for septic systems and so forth. So there are demands that remain with NRCS in that broad conservation operations. Just also in terms of farm planning, that they are there. farm bill came along and clearly has added to that. Now there are elements of what is needed in the farm bill to carry out those provisions, and what is kind of the core competency or the core responsibility of NRCS, and I am going to ask Bruce to kind of explain the steps in the program that they have been developing. But there are things that you do within the core component of NRCS that also are necessary to make sure that we meet the provisions of what needs to happen in the farm bill process.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STENHOLM. Bruce, before you answer, I would just like to ask a rhetorical question. But I wonder how many of those folks you just described are the same ones that believe that the tax cuts that we just passed are good for them, and therefore, the squeezing of expenditures means everything other than the expenditures of which you are talking about, that we still need to provide the services for?
Bruce, I don't expect you to answer that question. I just posed that as a rhetorical question.
Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. To get back to the previous question, the workload in the workload analysis that comes from the conservation technical assistance account is one of the most difficult ones to be able to put a beat on. And now that we are moving to outcome-based budgeting, we are going to have a better means of being able to tie each of those things back to the goals and objectives that are laid out nationally by the Department.
One of the challenges that the CTA needs are different from State to State because of the locally led process, and rightly so. So in Texas, we provide a great deal of planning assistance, as it pertains to grazing lands management and brush control, out of the CTA account with farmers and ranchers who quite honestly don't—aren't looking for cost share assistance. Simply the planning to be able to put together the grazing plan and be able to move forward on that. In Hawaii, that is going to look very differently, because we are talking about the outreach needs that we may have that are very unique in a tropical climate, and how you put forth some of the most recent work we did, which was a plants identification booklet for tropical climates. And that is the kind of thing that again would come out of the CTA account. Then you come to one of the most important things, actually the reason I was in North Carolina just yesterday, was standards in practices. We have been doing a comprehensive review of all the standards, which we are used to implement each of these programs, and that is largely done through the CTA account. What we were doing yesterday was a methane digester summit to look at how we have bring on this cutting edge technology, transfer it from a dream to something that is in practice. We announced three practice standards changes that we were making yesterday as a result of that. And so you have such a diffuse number of legitimate needs that are done within CTA, is what makes it very difficult to estimate how these interplay with these other programs.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, you and this subcommittee got a real interesting challenge with the letter that I have seen that the—we are going to reopen the farm bill with the budget that we are dealing with now. And as we do, I think the solution that you and the others here are trying to work out that we can find a solution in this, but it is going to be considerably different than what I think the overwhelming majority of the folks in this audience think that is going to be possible here. But I commend you for taking this on. You are right on target, and we look forward to working with you when you get your bill to the full committee.
Mr. LUCAS. The challenges lie ahead of us, you are exactly right, Mr. Stenholm, but that is why the good folks sent us here. Forward we will move.
I will turn to Mr. Moran and then Mr. Case to conclude questions.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate you have a second round of questions because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate the number of times I have heard from landowners about this issue of not a conserving use on signup of CRP. And I failed to mention that I have been told that our local employees were trained that this land would be included. And then subsequent, in May, a decision was made reversing it. So it seems to me it was—what confuses me now is my assumption was this was an inadvertent decision, or an inadvertent result. But now I am told that USDA actually made the decision that these acres would not be eligible, because it is not a conserving use to—and again, this conserving use is land in CRP enrolled comes out of CRP in the year 2000, continues in its grass State, and now we are told it is not a conservation or conserving use. I reiterate a couple of things.
One, if this was a decision by USDA as compared to just something that happened by error, I would like an explanation for how—what I thought we agreed was a silly result is the position of the Department. And then second, that again reiterate the importance of this signup date. It is inadequate, it seems to me, if you decide that this is a mistake, that you have made an error or it wasn't given adequate thought, that then we might tell landowners come back next signup. We don't know when that would be, we don't know what the acres would be eligible, we don't know what the new requirements would be. And so I would again reiterate the importance of having that either extended, although I assume you know who all of these people are. They have been rejected at the USDA Office. So I assume there is a button you can push on your computer and say, oh, we made a mistake, come back and see us.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOSELEY. That seems very logical to me.
Mr. MORAN. I thank you for your answer, Mr. Secretary. I have a second question if that——
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, but, there is a ''but'' on the end of this, as you know. I think you have raised what is quite frankly a question in my mind, and I was frankly unaware—I knew that there was some question over this, but I was unaware of the circumstances. What I will commit to you is that we will take this issue on yet this afternoon and we will try to sort out the real answer for you, and we will back to you by Friday with an explanation of the circumstances and try to find a potential solution to this.
Mr. MORAN. I thank you, and at this point couldn't ask for anything more, other than if you would have stopped your sentence before the ''but''.
One additional thought is it seems to me from a habitat perspective that we ought to be utilizing circle pivot corners for continuous CRP signup. And I have pushed this idea for a long time, for most of the time I have been in Congress. Is there any hope that this idea has merit at USDA?
Mr. MOSELEY. Well, again, now I am speaking as a farmer here for a second. That seems perfectly logical, but there may be a reason legally why that is not an issue that is on the table. And I would ask for Jim or Bruce—I think that is Jim's question, to respond to that.
Mr. LITTLE. There are only so many acres that we are going to be able to enroll under the new eligibility from the 36.4 million to the 39.2 million. We have 1.6 millionexpiring this year. And as we go through the remainder of the farm bill per say, we just don't believe that we are going to have that much capability. We have got almost 7 to 8 million acres that we believe would be—perhaps may be eligible, if we were to take in the corners of the center pivots. So it is something that we have looked at. It is something that we are really kind of in a quandary as to how we would be able to really determine the environmental benefit when we only have so many limited acres to enroll.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. I appreciate your comments. I do know that we pushed to include language in the farm bill that made one of the goals of CRP restoring habitat, and my hopes in part in pushing that language to be included was that we would send you another message about the priority of this aspect of CRP.
Mr. LITTLE. But we do believe that WHIP is available for that.
Mr. MORAN. I thank you, and Mr. Secretary, thank you for your response to my earlier question.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Moran. And I am sure that the executive comment on H.R. 1907 will follow closely behind the answers to your questions. Mr. Case.
Mr. CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just going back to one of my previous questions, which is not specific to Hawaii. But in one of the programs, Farmland and Ranchland Protection program, my understanding again is that seven areas had not received any allocation for 2003. Hawaii was one of them, but others include Nevada and other areas that you would expect to be interested in that and—had they expressed the interest to get the allocation. What is the reason, if you understand it, why no allocation was given to those States? Is it simply a matter of—I am noting that in each one of those situations, there was not an application in 2002. Is that the exclusive reason?
Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, sir.
Mr. CASE. Why is that? I mean, I don't know if it is calling for you to speculate, but why is it that they weren't interested?
Mr. KNIGHT. The 2002 farm bill really took the Farm and Ranchland Program forward in a major step in that it expanded the scope. And prior to the 2002 farm bill, you had to have basically a State agency that was operating the program and willing to implement it. And so this following 2002 farm bill authorities, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program was expanded exponentially into many States where you had individual entities were now eligible to be able to apply. And so you see it has expanded greatly, and many States went from zero to a significant allocation. So some of the States may in fact have not gotten as far as having a private land trust that would be in that situation. I believe, if I understand the situation in Hawaii specifically is we did not receive an application, and that was why there wasn't subsequent funding. Should we find interest, that would be taken in consideration, as we move forward with next year's allocations.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CASE. OK. Thank you.
Mr. LITTLE. If I could add just something, we have been working with the State of Hawaii in coming up with a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, so that might be something that we could put on the table or something that would be of benefit to Hawaii for conservation.
Mr. CASE. OK. Thank you.
Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman's time has expired. The subcommittee wishes to thank the Deputy Secretary and the Chief and the Administrator for your insights today, and to note that we will be coming soon to you with wonderful solutions to help you work with us on. Thank you, gentlemen. You are dismissed.
And the Chair would like to invite to the table our next panel. Ms. Nita Vail, executive director of the California Rangeland Trust, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sacramento, CA, on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, South East Dairy Farmers Association, and the Western United Dairymen. Also Mr. Mark Curtis, producer, Leland, MS, on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association and the USA Rice Federation. Also from the third district of Oklahoma, Mr. Terry Detrick, vice president of the Oklahoma Farmers Union, Ames, OK, on behalf of the National Farmers Union, and Ms. Rosemarie Watkins, senior director of congressional relations from the American Farm Bureau Federation here in DC. And whenever the panel is seated and ready to go, Ms. Vail, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MS. NITA C. VAIL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA RANGELAND TRUST, NATONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATON, SACRAMENTO, CA, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, SOUTHEAST DAIRY FARMERS ASSOCIATION, AND WESTERN UNITED DAIRYMEN
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. VAIL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nita Vail, and I am a fourth generation rancher, a member of the National Cattlemen's Association and a resident of California. I am here today on NCBA's behalf, on behalf of the National Pork Producers Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the Southeast Dairy Farmers Association and the Western United Dairymen. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, we are also being joined by United Egg Producers, the National Turkey Federation and the National Chicken Council, collectively in this testimony will be referred to as the livestock groups.
Thank you, Chairman Lucas and ranking member Holden, and other members of the subcommittee for holding this oversight hearing. The farm bill's Conservation Title is extremely critical to our producers, and we welcome this chance to comment on these important programs and issues.
Our written testimony speaks to the many fine provisions in the farm bill, Conservation Title and our support for them. And in the interest of time, I am going to limit my stated remarks to the issues that are of most concern to us, as implementation moves forward.
First, we would like to indicate our grave concern that funds are going to be diverted in this fiscal year 2003 and beyond from EQIP, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program and WHIP to support the implementation of the CRP and the WRP. We support the principle that each of the 2002 farm bill conservation programs pay their own technical assistance costs. We do not support the use of funds from one set of farm bill conservation programs to pay for the technical assistance of the other farm bill conservation programs.
We are deeply concerned about this situation and would very much like to see it corrected this year in a manner that results in no harm to the 2002 farm bill. The livestock groups believe that your recent legislation on this matter, I think this morning referred to as H.R. 1907, serves as a fine measure to ensure that no funds are diverted from EQIP, GRP, FRPP and WHIP. We also support an ultimate solution that preserves the funding for these programs and allows a strong and effective GRP and WRP to be implemented.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to EQIP, some groups have criticized the administration for faithfully adhering to the farm bill's language that allows EQIP funds to be used for structural measures for so-called large livestock operations, including new and expanding operations. We find criticisms misguided in this regard. EQIP will have the greatest environmental benefits if it can help those producers responsible for a majority of the animals in this country do a better job of managing their manure. Removing the large producer prohibition will do just that, and we continue to strongly support the use of an EQIP payment limitation, because we believe it will help make EQIP a sound and environmentally successful program.
We are also concerned about the provision in the EQIP final rule that makes nonpoint sources in the Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL watersheds to lead an only national priority focused on water quality. There are significant potential problems with this provision, depending on how NRCS implements it. We know that NRCS had leeway to address any one of several natural—the several natural resource concerns, and we ask for the subcommittee's assistance to support NRCS' implementation of this TMDL provision in a manner that does not otherwise damage the program.
With regard to the implementation of EQIP that is now just getting underway, we are concerned about proposed ranking criteria that may make the program less effective in helping livestock producers address their most pressing environmental regulations.
Many States have proposed giving higher priority to applications that include a separate soil erosion control component. We fully support using EQIP for erosion control, but are concerned that producers willing to do a first rate job of managing their manure might be denied critically needed assistance as a result of this approach. We will be monitoring this aspect of EQIP's implementation and anticipate having comments on this issue later this year.
We are also concerned that several States with strong livestock production sectors have not made comprehensive nutrient management plans a practice directly or indirectly eligible for EQIP. Some States have proposed requiring a nutrient management plan be prepared without financial assistance in advance of an EQIP application. In our view, this is bad policy and completely unacceptable. Nutrient management plans are going to be critical to helping livestock producers comply with the new CAFO rule. EQIP must work with regard to comprehensive nutrient management plans. We will report back to the committee on this matter once more information is available.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another area of great interest to us is the Grasslands Reserve Program. Prior to the 2002 farm bill, there were no programs that protected grassland, ranch land, or other land with comparable high resource value other than wetlands on a national scale. Congress recognized the need to protect all grasslands from development and conversion pressures by enacting the GRP, and it is designed to address the pressures to convert grassland for development by allowing landowners to enroll in grasslands and other range and pasture lands in short-term contracts.
As a rancher from California, a highly populous State, and which many of you may not know, we have 20 million acres of privately owned range lands, so the threats are immense. This program has incredible opportunity to serve not only the range land industry, but protect the infrastructure in our local communities and benefit society and the environment. After more than a year, the administration has yet to propose rules for this program. It is imperative that this program be implemented as expeditiously as possible. It is even more critical that the proposed and final program reflect congressional intent. The language of the farm bill, report language, and the legislative history show that Congress intended the GRP to be national in nature, and that land for enrollment should include grassland, including improved rangeland and pastureland. Implementation of the program that limits eligibility or diverts the funds to other resource concerns would not reflect congressional intent and would reduce our ability to protect our rapidly disappearing grasslands.
Moving on to the use of third party technical service providers is going to be critical to the implementation of the Conservation Title. Our group support NRCS in its role as the top technical assistance provider organization in this country. But we know that NRCS personnel are not going to be enough and that professionals in the private sector will be needed to help. We applaud USDA and NRCS' effort to implement these provisions. Many livestock groups have advocated a Federal Advisory Committee on technical TSP issues to help USDA make this program work. We continue to support this and encourage USDA to move forward.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And finally, livestock groups recognize that the Conservation Security Program has potential to provide livestock producers with important conservation assistance. We encourage USDA to move forward with implementation of the CSP and look forward to providing comments on the rulemaking once it is published.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you to make sure that the 2002 farm bill works for our producer members in the manner that you and other members of the committee envisioned when it was passed. Thank you for this hearing, for your leadership on these important issues that are so important to livestock producers. I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vail appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Ms. Vail. Mr. Curtis.
STATEMENT OF MARC CURTIS, PRODUCER, LELAND, MS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, THE NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL, THE AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION AND THE USA RICE FEDERATION
Mr. CURTIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, other members of committee, and the whole committee.
I am Marc Curtis, a soybean, rice, corn and wheat farmer from Leland, Mississippi. I am a past president of the American Soybean Association, and for the sake of full disclosure, I would like the committee to know that I am currently serving as secretary-treasurer of the National Association of Conservation Districts. However, today I am representing a group of commodity organizations that work together on conservation issues and feel strongly about the issues that we are discussing today. The groups being represented today include the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association and the USA Rice Federation. Our testimony will focus on implementation of the Conservation Title Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and the leadership of your committee, in helping to craft a Conservation Title in the 2002 farm bill that represents, in the words of the Bush administration, ''The single most significant commitment of resources toward conservation on private lands in the Nation's history.''
This was accomplished by greatly expanding existing working lands programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, that expressly directs a percentage share of the program towards non-livestock producers and increasing the acreage cap enrollment of set-aside programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program.
You also created promising new programs, such as the Grasslands Reserve Program, which authorizes enrollment of up to 2 million acres of restored, improved or natural grassland, or rangeland and pastureland. And a program in which our members have enormous interest, the Conservation Security Program, which can provide an unprecedented opportunity to increase conservation on private working lands.
I say it can provide an unprecedented opportunity, because draft regulations have yet to be sent out for public comment, and there are some initial indications, for example, in the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking recently sent out for public comment, that USDA is looking for ways to artificially constrain this program.
And while we realize that the Federal Government is not going to throw open the doors of the Treasury and hand us a pitchfork to start shoveling out the money, it seemed clear that the intent of Congress was for the CSP to be a program for all producers on all working lands addressing one or more resources of concern on all or part of their farming operation.
Many of our members are also concerned that this program not simply be targeted to the bad actors who have not been as ambitious in addressing conservation concerns, but also be utilized to reward those producers who have been very aggressive in addressing conservation needs and could at least qualify for Tier 1 conservation maintenance.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We fully understand the daunting task facing the Department of Agriculture in implementing these programs, and we understand that they have been diligently working to get regulations finalized, funding allocated and to get these programs up and running so that we can begin to realize conservation benefits on the ground and out in our fields.
However, the initial optimism which followed passage of the 2002 farm bill has given way to concern in part because the ongoing debate over funding sources for technical assistance. It appears that interpretation of the provisions of the new farm law and recent language added to the omnibus appropriations commission will erode program resources as well as the confidence of support of our members.
For example, the EQIP Program was initially authorized at $700 million. It was then reduced to $695 million as a result of Appropriations actions, and now stands at $588 million program as a result of the interpretation that requires EQIP to contribute towards the technical assistance requirements of the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program.
Some of our members have also been informed that while land planted anytime in the past to a multi-year grass or legume could meet the cropping eligibilities for enrollment in CRP, the eligibility now only applies to lands planted to a multi-grass crop or legume after 1996. My question is, is highly erodible land in 1995 less valuable to protect than highly erodible land in 1997? These are rules cooked up by accounting types, not by those who are concerned about the good conservation stewardship of our land.
We also understand that the 2002 farm bill was drafted and passed by Congress during a time of budget surplus, while it is being implemented during a time of budget deficits. Clearly there are increasing pressures to restrain domestic spending, but the farm law was written in compliance with the budget resolution in effect at that time. Therefore, the programs authorized in the farm bill and signed into law by the President just over a year ago should be implemented as authorized.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each of our organizations, along with the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union, have corresponded with Congress indicating our strong opposition to any effort to amend, alter or siphon off funding from the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Our groups will again communicate our opposition to amendments, which alter the balance of funding for price support, conservation and nutrition, risk management and export promotion. I believe you have a letter that I ask be included in the record concerning this.
We are aware of the legislation you have introduced, Mr. Chairman, to address the problem of technical assistance funding, and wish to express our support for your recent efforts to ensure that each of the 2002 farm bill conservation programs funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation pay for their own technical assistance costs. We do not support the use of funds from one set of farm bill conservation programs to pay for the TA of other farm bill conservation programs.
Under current law, as being implemented by the administration this fiscal year, the TA costs of the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program will be paid from CCC funds made available to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Grassland Reserves Program. In the case of EQIP in the fiscal year 2003, this will result in the withdrawal of approximately $107 million. GRP, FPP and WHIP lose a comparable relative share of the total funds needed to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance.
We are deeply concerned about this situation, and very much would like to see it corrected in this fiscal year in a manner that results in no harm to the 2002 farm bill provisions that have been supported and embraced by the agricultural community.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to emphasize several principles that we feel are important to keep in our collective minds as we move forward on farm bill implementation. First, we believe that each conservation program should pay its own technical assistance and that the provisions embodied in the legislation you have introduced provide positive guidance toward achieving this objective. However, we sincerely hope that an administrative solution can be found based on your direction.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, we will actively oppose any attempt to amend, alter or divert funding away from farm bill programs, as authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President just over a year ago. Farmers need a consistent, predictable long-term policy in order to make sound investment, cropping and marketing decisions, and to compete in a world market replete with subsidies, tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
We appreciate this opportunity to present our views, and we are happy to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Mr. Detrick.
STATEMENT OF TERRY DETRICK, VICE PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA FARMERS UNION, AMES, OK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION
Mr. DETRICK. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Holden, ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Stenholm, members of this Subcommittee on Conservation. I am Terry Detrick, a wheat, forage and livestock producer from Ames, Oklahoma. I currently serve as vice president of the Oklahoma Farmers Union.
Mr. Chairman, from your constituents back home, thank you for your bold work on conservation issues with dire consequences for all citizens, not just producers. National Farmers Union represents 300,000 independent, diversified, owner-operated family farms and ranches across the Nation, and we are grateful to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the crucial issue related to funding for technical assistance for conservation programs included in the 2002 farm bill.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although this is an intricate budgetary topic, we thank the Chair, the ranking member, and others for their efforts to rectify the funding fight that has developed seemingly between the administration and Congress. The issue before us today centers around the amount and source of the money for the farm bill conservation programs, and this includes technical assistance provided to farmers and ranchers that must implement very complex conservation systems on their working lands. We believe the money for technical assistance should come from the Conservation Program accounts themselves. We support your bipartisan efforts on H.R. 1907 to address the funding dilemma that has been created for some of these agricultural conservation programs.
We believe that the OMB decision to not fully fund the technical components of the Conservation programs because they claim other funds are available is wrong for Conservation programs, wrong for farmers and ranchers. We also believe that NRCS should not use funds from its Conservation Operations account to supplement these programs. And these funds are crucial for NRCS' non-farm bill conservation responsibilities.
Following this approach only encourages a divide and conquer strategy. It sets up a potential fight among livestock and production agriculture, geographical regions of the country, working lands conservation versus non-working lands conservation, and is not healthy for the development of program opportunities meant to apply to all farmers and ranchers across the country.
To summarize our views in a nutshell, No. 1, the farm bill conservation programs should be fully funded as authorized in the farm bill, and No. 2, that the discretionary NRCS Conservation Operation fund should not be redirected to support the implementation of the mandatory farm bill conservation programs. The 2002 farm bill has been called the greatest ever, and our members want the programs that they supported and worked hard for to be included in the farm bill to be implemented the way Congress wrote the law.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Throughout the farm bill debate, congressional leaders such as you saw the importance of technical assistance as a key component in getting conservation programs put into practice on working lands across America. In order that complex conservation systems be developed and applied, the concept of technical assistance supplied by third-party providers was a key element supported by both Congress and the administration, and the provisions will be seriously undermined if technical assistance is not fully funded.
The partnership between the NRCS and the local conservation districts is key to rendering the effective third-party provider technical assistance across the countryside. It appears that the administration supports using a combination of program fund offsets and redirected discretionary funds, including a large percentage of base conservation operations funds to fund technical assistance for our conservation programs. We feel this approach would result in severe reductions in important conservation and rural development programs, and would restrict the ability of the Appropriations Committees to direct funds to programs it sees as high priority needs for the country.
We agree with the conclusions reached by the GAO, that the farm bill specifically provides funding for technical assistance as a part of the mandatory funding for each and every Conservation Program in the farm bill. We encourage your efforts and your legislation to be as inclusive as possible, and support your efforts to ensure that the original intent of Congress in writing the 2002 farm bill will be carried out.
What ranchers and farmers do not want is further delay in implementing the farm bill. We believe passage of H.R. 1907 will help remedy the situation before us today. We stand ready to work with you to get it passed and protect the integrity of NRCS, and we thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Detrick appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Detrick. Ms. Watkins.
STATEMENT OF ROSEMARIE WATKINS, SENIOR DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Ms. WATKINS. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation before the subcommittee on the issue of farm bill Conservation Program delivery.
The subcommittee has specifically requested that we address the issue of conservation program technical assistance funding. We are extremely concerned about the ongoing shortfall of technical assistance funding for CRP and WRP. In fiscal year 2003, this shortfall will result in a substantial cut in funding for EQIP and other conservation programs. This comes at a time when EQIP has a significant application backlog. We believe every program must cover its own technical assistance delivery costs. The chairman's bill is a good first step in providing guidance.
In the case of CRP and WRP, we believe USDA should calculate the delivery cost of program enrollment. Acres available for enrollment should be reduced to a level to fund program delivery and technical assistance. We are not suggesting a reduction in the statutory cap of 39.2 million acres. CRP has never been fully enrolled, and WRP yearly acreages have varied. The programs and their goals would not be sacrificed or jeopardized in any way. The programs would cover their own costs without incurring additional budget obligations or taxing other programs. We urge the Congress and the administration to work together to resolve this issue. The integrity of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is critical. Resolving this issue in a timely, straightforward manner is essential. Farm Bureau supports full funding of the farm bill and opposes any action that would upset that financial balance.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to program delivery and implementation, conservation has increasingly become a priority for our members. Conservation cost-share and incentives are essential to assist producers in addressing public concerns related to the environment. If farm bill conservation programs are to be successful, adequate technical assistance will be key. We must be available to—funding must be available to demonstrate that voluntary incentive based conservation programs can be successful in addressing environmental issues and serve as an alternative to the more costly and burdensome regulatory approach.
One important component to program delivery will be the utilization of technical service providers. We do have some concern regarding implementation of this program.
The confidentiality of information provided to technical service providers must be protected. Farmers and ranchers are increasingly concerned regarding the confidentiality of information provided as part of program participation. The farm bill specifically exempted such information from distribution to other agencies of Government and from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. This protection must be extended to all information made available to third-party technical service providers.
Additionally, technical service providers must be bonded and have appropriate liability insurance. We understand that in some States liability insurance may not be available for some practices or cost-prohibitive. NRCS should review bonding and insurance issues on a state-by-state basis to assess availability and consider some means of providing insurance where none is available. Payment rates for technical service providers are to be based on NRCS cost of service. When calculating the cost of service, we want to be sure that actual NRCS costs are complete, including insurance, office and administrative costs.
Additionally, the regulations lay out a complex system for producers to utilize technical service providers. Errors in timing or contracting procedures could result in producers not being reimbursed for costs. It is essential that NRCS provide a plain English step-by-step procedure guide for producers.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As far as the EQIP, the EQIP final rule has just been released making it difficult to assess prog