[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2448-S2450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I came to Congress in 1975 and served in
the House until 1984, when I was elected to the Senate. As a member of
the House Agriculture Committee and later the Senate Agriculture
Committee I have always known the importance of agriculture
conservation. My home State of Iowa is rich in agriculture and also
rich in the tradition of conservation.
But even in Iowa, we recognize the need for more conservation. For
decades we had cost-share money available for producers through the
Agriculture Conservation Program. But, it was not
[[Page S2449]]
until 1990 that a farm bill took the next critical step toward
conservation by including my Water Quality Incentives Program. This
program, for the first time in agriculture history, included incentive
payments for producers. The basic concepts and principles of WQIP were
the foundation for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP,
included in the 1996 farm bill. EQIP, which expanded beyond water
quality to all natural resources, was a fundamental advancement for
conservation on working lands.
However, even with these advances we were still spending over 90
percent of conservation dollars on land retirement programs, namely CRP
and WRP. While these two programs are critically important, it became
abundantly clear that conservation on working lands needed to be
addressed. EQIP was hugely popular among farmers and ranchers, but the
dollars were limited and many, many, many producers were left
stranded--unable to access this program.
Moreover, a growing resentment from good conservationists was brewing
over the EQIP funding. Too many good stewards of their lands were left
out of the conservation programs. Those who worked hard, using their
own resources and ingenuity, were not recognized by USDA agriculture
conservation programs.
As I traveled the countryside, it became abundantly clear that change
was necessary. I heard from many producers that we finally needed a
good strong conservation program open to all producers, not just a few
select producers. And, they told me that we needed a conservation
program that rewarded those committed stewards of the land, instead of
excluding them.
During the development of the farm bill, I continued to press for an
expanded conservation title. To expand and improve the existing
conservation programs and to finally add a new conservation program
which I called the Conservation Security Program--a program to secure
the right of all American farmers and ranchers to access
conservation dollars to adopt and maintain conservation practices on
their lands. We did not put a cap on the CSP so that all producers who
would carry out conservation and meet the requirements could enroll in
it. The CSP was a novel approach to conservation--it adopted the well-
accepted full participation principle in our commodity programs. That
is the most unique factor of CSP. I first proposed CSP in 1999 and over
the next three years CSP evolved into the groundbreaking program that
was included in the 2002 farm bill. Prior to the final product, the CSP
was introduced in a bipartisan manner on both the House and the Senate
in 2001.
Senator Smith of Oregon and I worked hard on developing this
important program. It took long hours of negotiation involving staff
together with major commodity groups, like the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers
Association, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife,
Sierra Club and many others. Moreover, we worked extensively with the
USDA. Eventually, we developed a program embraced by both commodity and
conservation groups alike.
But, the evolution of CSP continued through the development of the
farm bill. As the Senate worked on the farm bill, Senator Lugar,
Senator Smith and I continued to modify the CSP to ensure that the
environmental benefits were maximized and that farmer access was
paramount. Senator Lugar and I developed joint principles on the farm
bill, including for the conservation title. While both Senator Lugar
and I vocally supported a strong conservation title, we took time to
refine the CSP. As a result of our bipartisan work, the conservation
title, including a CSP without an arbitrary funding limit of the Senate
Agriculture Committee unanimously.
But, our work on the CSP was far from over. As we moved into
conference with the House, we again worked to improve CSP. We worked
tirelessly and carefully to refine the CSP and make sure that it was
acceptable to all members of conference. This was not a simple process.
The Farm bill conference took months, and the conservation title was
debated during the entire process. I personally engaged in weeks of
negotiations on the CSP. Because I understood the critical importance
of including a CSP without a funding cap in the final bill, I made many
concessions on the farm bill.
Finally, after months of debate, the conference agreed to include CSP
as an uncapped program--one open to all producers who meet requirements
of the program and one that would have a budget baseline in the future
as the program grew. The farm bill was a carefully negotiated bill that
required a delicate balancing of all concerns.
When President Bush signed the 2002 farm bill last May, we all
celebrated the historic increase in conservation spending for existing
and new programs. For the first time ever, the farm bill took a
monumental step forward toward truly addressing conservation of natural
resources on our farms and ranches in the form of the CSP.
The CSP, by its uncapped nature, ensured for the first time that all
farmers and ranchers who meet the requirements may participate in an
agriculture conservation program. Again, it was uncapped nature of this
program that provided for this program that provided for this giant
step for conservation--for both our farmers and ranchers and the
environment.
I must restate that the CSP will generate real environment benefits.
The design of CSP mandate these benefits. Producers are required to
maintain or adopt conservation practices at the highest level of all
conservation programs.
Why else is CSP so important? For many reasons--It is the first
program that provides a comprehensive approach covering the full range
of conservation and environmental issues related to working lands, and
enables participation based on one unified, site-specific conservation
plan.
CSP helps rebalance conservation funding in support of incentives for
land in production so that producers don't have to retireland and stop
farming in order to benefit. CSP is open to producers of all types of
crops and all parts of the country. CSP, for the first time, pays
producers in recognition of the public nature resource and
environmental benefits provided on working farms and ranches, including
maintenance payments for active management of already adopted
practices. And, CSP is compatible with our trade obligations under WTO.
That is why major commodity and conservation groups support CSP.
Groups including, Cotton Council, American Farm Bureau Federation,
American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers,
National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National
Milk Producers Federation, United Fresh Fruits & Vegetables, U.S. Rice
Producers, American Farmland Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, National
Association of Conservation Districts, National Audubon Society,
Pheasants Forever, Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, Union of Concerned
Scientists and many more. Despite the Administration's contention that
it supports voluntary conservation programs in the farm bill, we have
found that their words are not matched by their actions. In fact, the
Administration has actively worked to undermine conservation programs.
Just recently, the Administration described CSP as having ``a unique
role among USDA conservation programs. It identifies and rewards those
farmers and ranchers who meet the highest standards of conservation and
environmental management on their operations, creates powerful
incentives for other producers to meet those same standards of
conservation performance on their operations, and provides public
benefits for generations to come.''
Despite this glowing endorsement, the Administration has attacked
CSP--by proposing to cut back CSP to a strict $2 billion for 10 years
in the FY04 budget and by pushing to cap CSP to only $3.77 billion in
this omnibus appropriations bill. The manner in which the CSP was
capped was unfair. It began with a small provision in the House
agriculture appropriations bill by limiting CSP as a pilot program in
FY03 in my home state of Iowa.
But as time went on and the majority developed an inadequate disaster
bill--one that doesn't provide the necessary support farmers need, they
decided they needed an offset for the program. So, for the first time,
we have
[[Page S2450]]
now created a horrible precedent of requiring an offset for disaster
payments. And, where did the Administration go for this offset? The
farm bill which was just passed nine months ago. And, more importantly,
what did the Administration attack first--the conservation title.
During the farm bill, the CSP was scored by CBO for $2 billion, but
as the popularity and producer support and excitement for this program
grew, CBO rescored this program for significantly more. In fact, the
most recent score for CSP is $6.8 billion. Instead of seeing a
wonderful vehicle to accomplish conservation on the ground, the Bush
Administration viewed CSP as a cash cow--one to attack to pay for
disaster payments. So, without any ability for debate, in the quiet of
the night behind closed doors the Administration undermined the most
important conservation program ever authorized--a conservation program
open to all producers and capped the CSP. This cap fundamentally
changes the CSP.
No longer can all producers have the security of knowing they can
participate in a conservation program, no longer can the promised
environmental benefits of the conservation title of the farm bill
guaranteed. By capping this program--unintended restrictions on
participation will follow and the baseline we worked so hard to develop
and so carefully negotiated in the farm bill is gone. And, we have
greatly hindered the most promising program we had for meeting our WTO
obligations in the future.
It is clear today that the Administration is bent on undermining
conservation practices and the CSP. It is clear that its words of
praise for conservation cannot be reconciled with its destructive
measures.
The colloquy between Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator
Daschle, Senator Frist and me entered into on passage of the Omnibus
Appropriations bill on February 13, will hopefully lead to correcting
this mistake on the next supplemental appropriations bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Congressman Goodlatte be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the House Agriculture Committee, Feb. 13, 2003]
Chairman Goodlatte's Statement Concerning the Final Omnibus Spending
Bill and the Drought Assistance Provision
``We are pleased that the final drought assistance
provision provides targeted disaster relief to those farmers
who need it the most. It is my hope that this approach will
help countless American farmers avoid devastating financial
circumstances. I am pleased that it is paid for.
``However, the Committee is greatly concerned that it is
paid for out of a carefully negotiated Farm Bill, and would
have preferred that the funds had been found elsewhere.
Breaking open the Farm Bill, before it has even been
implemented, is a very serious matter. This is a dangerous
precedent, which we strongly opposed throughout the course of
these negotiations.
``This is a warning to farm legislators and the farm
community at large to be vigilant. It will be a constant
effort to ensure that the Farm Bill remains a valuable asset
to America's farmers and ranchers. While this legislation
will help farmers who are hurting right now, we must make
certain that in providing this assistance, we don't harm
American agriculture in the long term.''
____________________