[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 137 (Monday, December 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10906-H10909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    LIMITING TRANSFER OF CERTAIN COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUNDS

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2856) to limit the transfer of certain Commodity Credit 
Corporation funds between conservation programs for technical 
assistance for the programs.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2856

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1241 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended by striking subsection (b) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Technical Assistance.--Effective for fiscal year 2005 
     and each subsequent fiscal year, Commodity Credit Corporation 
     funds made available for each of the programs specified in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall be available for the provision of technical 
     assistance for the programs for which funds are made 
     available; and
       ``(2) shall not be available for the provision of technical 
     assistance for conservation programs specified in subsection 
     (a) other than the program for which the funds were made 
     available.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on October 1, 2004.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2856. Conservation was a 
significant part of the 2002 farm bill. Congress increased the 
conservation budget by nearly $2 billion per year, a 75 percent 
increase. However, there is a current shortfall in the Conservation 
Technical Service Assistance budget at the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. This shortfall represents the costs necessary to 
administer the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve programs.
  So far, those costs have been taken directly out of the pockets of 
farmers and ranchers, and, if you permit me, the environment, when 
fewer conservation benefits are provided by the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program and the other so-called donor programs. In other 
words, the NRCS takes money from EQIP and farmland protection so that 
CRP and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and WRP can be 
administered.
  The USDA has also been using the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
or WHIP, the Farmland Protection Program, FPP, and the Grasslands 
Reserve Program as donor programs for CRP and WRP.
  S. 2856 will help alleviate some of the implementation problems that 
have occurred during the last 2 years when approximately $100 million 
per year was being taken from the four donor programs. When the farm 
bill was written, it was Congress' intent that each conservation 
program would pay for its own technical assistance. I have been working 
with the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations 
committees to ensure S. 2856's passage will prevent funds from being 
diverted from the donor programs. I have numerous groups supporting the 
bill, and I will include for the Record these letters.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 3, 2004.
       Dear Congressman: We write today to ask for your support of 
     S. 2856 on Monday, December 6, 2004. This bill, which has 
     been adopted in the Senate, addresses a misunderstanding that 
     has existed between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 
     the Congress as to the source of funding for the technical 
     assistance costs for certain Farm Bill conservation programs.
       S. 2856 ensures that the original intent of Congress will 
     be used in the implementation of these programs where each of 
     them will be expected to pay for their own technical 
     assistance from their own share of the total funding made 
     available to them. As passed by the Farm Bill, these programs 
     have a significant backlog of requests from farmers and 
     ranchers for conservation assistance.
       We wholeheartedly support S. 2856 because without it 
     several of these conservation programs will be significantly 
     hampered from achieving their intended purpose--helping 
     farmers and ranchers improve and conserve soil, air and water 
     quality and restore and improve wildlife habitat. We ask for 
     your strong support of this measure when it comes before the 
     House on December 6, 2004.
           Sincerely,
       National Soybean Association.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Association of Conservation Districts.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Turkey Federation.
       Southeast Dairy Farmers Association.
       Western United Dairymen.
                                  ____

                                                 December 6, 2004.
       Dear Representative: We strongly urge that you enact S. 
     2856 to ensure that USDA stops the practice of diverting 
     funds from the dollar-limited, working lands conservation 
     programs to pay for technical assistance costs associated 
     with land requirement programs.
       Since enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill, USDA has diverted 
     more than $200 million from EQIP, the Farmland and Ranchland 
     Protection Program (FRPP), the Grasslands Reserve Program, 
     and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to pay for 
     technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program 
     (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Unless this 
     problem is fixed, farmers and ranchers seeking to improve 
     water and air quality and enhance wildlife habitat stand to 
     lose approximately $100 million in FY05 and nearly $300 
     million in FY06 and FY07.
       S. 2856 protects funding for all USDA conservation 
     programs. S. 2856 ensures that funding for CRP and WRP 
     technical assistance flows directly from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, not from working lands

[[Page H10907]]

     conservation programs. S. 2856 passed the Senate by Unanimous 
     Consent on October 11, 2004, and the House-passed FY05 
     Congressional Budget Resolution specifically provides for the 
     passage of the same legislation by the House. It is critical 
     that S. 2856 is passed by the 108th Congress or scarce 
     conservation funds will once again be lost in FY05 and 
     subsequent years.
       S. 2856 restores the original intent of the 2002 Farm Bill. 
     The Farm Bill clearly intended USDA to use mandatory funds 
     from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to pay for CRP 
     and WRP technical assistance. The plain language of the 
     statute and legislative history support this interpretation 
     of the Farm Bill, and the General Accounting Office concurred 
     in an October 8, 2002, opinion. Unfortunately, a handful of 
     government lawyers misinterpreted the 2002 Farm Bill, forcing 
     USDA to divert funds from EQIP and other working lands 
     programs or shut down CRP and WRP.
       We strongly urge you to support passage of S. 2856 to 
     ensure that funding for technical assistance for all Farm 
     Bill conservation programs, including CRP and WRP, comes 
     directly from the CCC, as intended by the 2002 Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
       American Farmland Trust.
       Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
       Defenders of Wildlife.
       Environmental Defense.
       National Wildlife Federation.
       National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
       Union of Concerned Scientists.

  As you can see from the letters, S. 2856 receives extremely broad and 
deep support. Groups from varied interests such as the National 
Cattleman's Beef Association and Environmental Defense are all strident 
supporters of S. 2856. These organizations, along with nearly 25 
others, representing producers and environmental interests, encourage 
passage of S. 2856.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and their staff for their 
assistance. I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for his support of this effort. But I cannot 
stress enough how much I want to thank our subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Lucas), who has worked on this issue 
for years to try to get a correction, and I think that this goes a long 
way in helping what needs to be done get done here.
  I also cannot stress enough how important these programs are or how 
important it is that producers have access to programs to keep the soil 
and air clean and to improve and restore wildlife habitat.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 2856 to ensure voluntary 
conservation programs are allowed to work efficiently and effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2856 and support its passage. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Lucas) for working with the 
leadership to schedule consideration of this bill today. This is an 
issue that has needed attention for some time, and I am pleased we are 
finally addressing it.
  The conservation title of the 2002 farm bill made a major investment 
of new funding in a variety of existing and new conservation programs. 
I was proud to have played a role in that effort to help our farmers 
and ranchers conserve and enhance the natural resources under their 
control.
  Many of us, as well as producers out in the field, were frustrated by 
the actions taken by USDA to try and address how to provide technical 
assistance for the Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve programs. 
Borrowing from some programs to pay for the technical assistance to 
carry out WRP and CRP was not a good solution. It was a solution forced 
upon them by OMB after dueling interpretations by this administration 
based on language included in the 2002 farm bill. We never intended 
such draconian measures, which required them to rob Peter to pay Paul. 
This bill corrects and guides the administration on the implementation 
of these vital conservation programs after several attempts made by 
Congress to fix this problem.
  There is currently a $3.4 billion backlog of applications in the 
various conservation programs that have not been funded, despite the 
infusion of new money from the 2002 farm bill. Passage of this 
legislation will be a small but important step in helping to address 
that backlog. It will also provide for some certainty for those 
landowners who are signing up for the CRP and WRP programs and allow us 
to fulfill our commitments made in the 2002 farm bill to conservation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and 
Research of the Committee on Agriculture, who has been a real leader in 
fighting for fairness in these conservation programs.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2865. I, along 
with my ranking member on the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, 
Rural Development and Research, have worked tirelessly as an advocate 
of voluntary agricultural programs since becoming chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  The 2002 farm bill provided that each conservation program was 
supposed to pay for its own technical assistance costs out of the funds 
provided for it. During the implementation of the farm bill, the USDA 
lawyers, in my opinion, misinterpreted how Congress intended to pay for 
technical assistance. Under their interpretation, the CRP and WRP 
programs would not have had enough money to do sign-ups.
  The 2003 omnibus appropriation bill added a short-term, stopgap 
measure that would allow funds from EQIP, WHIP, Farmland Protection and 
GRP programs to be donated to fund CRP and WRP sign-ups. Approximately 
$100 million per year has been diverted from these programs to fund CRP 
and WRP.
  This was not a long-term, sustainable solution, so we began working 
with the budget committees to find a solution. The CRP program will 
have nearly 20 million of its 39.2 million acres eligible for new 
contracts in the next 5 years. For the next 4 years, EQIP, WHIP, 
Farmland Protection and GRP could lose nearly $406 million to CRP and 
WRP implementation sign-ups.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, S. 2856 was provided for in the House budget and is a 
fair solution for the entire conservation community. This bill will 
ensure that producers can voluntarily keep America's air and water 
clean and provide better habitat for its wildlife.
  I would certainly be remiss if I did not thank the leadership staff 
for working with us and the chairman and the ranking member for their 
full efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the Record letters from 44 
different groups supporting this measure, from farm producer groups to 
environmental groups to sportsman groups.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 2004.
       Dear Congressman: We write today to ask for your support of 
     S. 2856, which may be on the House Calendar today, Monday, 
     December 6, 2004. This bill, which has been adopted in the 
     Senate, addresses a misunderstanding that has existed between 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Congress as to the 
     source of funding for the technical assistance costs for 
     certain Farm Bill conservation programs.
       S. 2856 ensures that the original intent of Congress will 
     be used in the implementation of these programs where each of 
     them will be expected to pay for their own technical 
     assistance from their own share of the total funding made 
     available to them. As passed by the Farm Bill, these programs 
     have a significant backlog of request from farmers and 
     ranchers for conservation assistance.
       We wholeheartedly support S. 2856 because without it 
     several of these conservation programs will be significantly 
     hampered from achieving their intended purpose--helping 
     farmers and ranchers improve and conserve soil, air and water 
     quality and restore and improve wildlife habitat. We ask for 
     your strong support of this measure when it comes before the 
     House on December 6, 2004.
           Sincerely,
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Soybean Association.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Association of Conservation Districts.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Chicken Council.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.

[[Page H10908]]

       National Farmers Union.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Turkey Federation.
       Southeast Dairy Farmers Association.
       United Chicken Council.
       United Egg Producers.
       USA Rice Federation.
       U.S. Rice Producers Association.
       Western United Dairymen.
                                  ____

                                                 December 6, 2004.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, Office of the Speaker, Capitol Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Tom DeLay,
     Majority Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader DeLay: As the 
     House reconvenes this week with the appropriations for FY 
     2005, the conservation and sportsmen's organizations listed 
     above, which represent a diverse spectrum of interests with a 
     combined membership of millions, stand together urging you 
     and your Congressional colleagues to support S. 2856. Your 
     support of this bill would mean the technical assistance 
     funding needs of all the conservation programs would be met, 
     including the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the 
     Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), without reducing the acres 
     authorized for those very popular programs and without 
     diverting funds from other Farm Bill conservation programs.
       The enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill resulted in conflicting 
     interpretations of the Conservation Title's funding for 
     technical assistance, and resulted in leaving all the 
     conservation programs in danger. A decision was made to use 
     funds of four conservation programs as donors for delivery of 
     WRP and CRP in FY 2003 and FY 2004. This was the combined 
     result of the limitation on the use of Commodity Credit 
     Corporation (CCC) funds under the ``Section 11 Cap'' and the 
     decision by Congress in the FY 2003 omnibus appropriations 
     bill to prohibit the Natural Resources Conservation Services 
     (NRCS) from using discretionary Conservation Operations 
     account funds to pay for Farm Bill program technical 
     assistance.
       Unfortunately, this decision resulted in a net loss of 
     funding to all conservation programs. We believe any proposal 
     to fund CRP and WRP technical assistance through a reduction 
     in the number of program acres fails to recognize the 
     tremendous public benefits to soil, water quality and 
     wildlife habitat provided by the acres enrolled in these two 
     programs as well as the tremendous producer demand for these 
     programs. The 2002 Farm Bill clearly intended USDA to use 
     mandatory funds from the CCC to pay for technical assistance 
     for all programs. The plain language of the statute and 
     legislative history support this interpretation of the Farm 
     Bill funding provision, as well as the legal opinion issued 
     by the General Accounting Office in October 2002.
       If Congress fails to solve this problem, farmers and the 
     environment stand to lose. Despite the increase in 
     conservation funding provided by the 2002 Farm Bill, most 
     farmers and ranchers offering to restore wetlands or 
     grasslands, retire marginal farmland, or to simply change 
     their farming practice to improve water and air quality are 
     still rejected when they seek financial and technical 
     assistance through voluntary USDA conservation programs.
       There is strong, bi-partisan, nationwide support for CRP 
     and WRP, evidenced by last year's defeat of a Senate 
     amendment that would have effectively shut down technical 
     assistance funding the CRP. There was widespread opposition 
     to the amendment because it did not provide a holistic 
     solution to the technical assistance problem, and lacked a 
     definitive source of funds. In a strong show of support, a 
     majority of the Senate agreed that the amendment equated to 
     abandoning one of the most successful conservation programs 
     in the United States.
       We respectfully request you to support efforts during your 
     deliberations to include the FY 2005 Agriculture 
     Appropriations bill a permanent fix for this problem that 
     ensures that technical assistance for all conservation 
     programs is provided directly from the CCC. Additionally, we 
     encourage you to work to protect acres authorized for CRP and 
     WRP in the 2002 Farm Bill. If you or your staff has questions 
     about this issue, please call Barton James (Ducks Unlimited) 
     at 202-347-1530.
       Thank you for considering our view of the importance of 
     Farm Bill conservation programs and the need to secure the 
     necessary technical assistance funding without severe impacts 
     to the resource benefits achieved on the ground.

       Archery Trade Association.
       Bowhunting Preservation Alliance.
       Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.
       Ducks Unlimited.
       International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
       International Hunter Education Association.
       Izaak Walton League of America.
       Orion--The Hunter's Institute.
       Pheasants Forever.
       Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
       Safari Club International.
       Texas Wildlife Association.
       Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
       Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.
       Wildlife Forever.
       Wildlife Management Institute.
       The Wildlife Society.
                                  ____

                                                 December 6, 2004.
       Dear Representative: We strongly urge that you enact S. 
     2856 to ensure that USDA stops the practice of diverting 
     funds from the dollar-limited, working lands conservation 
     programs to pay for technical assistance costs associated 
     with land retirement programs.
       Since enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill, USDA has diverted 
     more than $200 million from EQIP, the Farmland and Ranchland 
     Protection Program (FRPP), the Grasslands Reserve Program, 
     and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to pay for 
     technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program 
     (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Unless this 
     problem is fixed, farmers and ranchers seeking to improve 
     water and air quality and enhance wildlife habitat stand to 
     lose approximately $100 million in FY05 and nearly $300 
     million in FY06 and FY07.
       S. 2856 protects funding for all USDA conservation 
     programs. S. 2856 ensures that funding for CRP and WRP 
     technical assistance flows directly from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, not from working lands conservation programs. S. 
     2856 passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent on October 11, 
     2004, and the House-passed FY05 Congressional Budget 
     Resolution specifically provides for the passage of the same 
     legislation by the House. It is critical that S. 2856 is 
     passed by the 108th Congress or scarce conservation funds 
     will once again be lost in FY05 and subsequent years.
       S. 2856 restores the original intent of the 2002 Farm Bill. 
     The Farm Bill clearly intended USDA to sue mandatory funds 
     from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to pay for CRP 
     and WRP technical assistance. The plain language of the 
     statute and legislative history support this interpretation 
     of the Farm Bill, and the General Accounting Office concurred 
     in an October 8, 2002, opinion. Unfortunately, a handful of 
     government lawyers misinterpreted the 2002 Farm Bill, forcing 
     USDA to divert funds from EQIP and other working lands 
     programs or shut down CRP and WRP.
       We strongly urge you to support passage of S. 2856 to 
     ensure that funding for technical assistance for all Farm 
     Bill conservation programs, including CRP and WRP, comes 
     directly from the CCC, as intended by the 2002 Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
       American Farmland Trust.
       Cheaspeake Bay Foundation.
       Defenders of Wildlife.
       Environmental Defense.
       National Wildlife Federation.
       National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
       Union of Concerned Scientists.

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Conservation.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I congratulate and thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Goodlatte) and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Lucas), for his hard work on this legislation. I would like to 
take a moment to congratulate and thank the ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), on an outstanding 
congressional career. As we all know, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) will be leaving us and not serving in the next Congress. But 
I just want to say to the gentleman that not only is the Committee on 
Agriculture going to miss his leadership; the entire agriculture 
community across the country is going to miss his guidance and his 
input. On a personal note I am truly going to miss his leadership, and 
I thank him for all of the help that he has given to me personally over 
the years.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2856, which will 
fix a problem with technical assistance funding for agriculture 
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.
  There is a huge problem with donor programs such as the Farm and 
Ranchland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
Grassland Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentive 
Program, providing technical assistance funding for the Conservation 
Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program.
  These donations continue to inhibit the implementation of these 
effective programs in the way that Congress intended. We must make sure 
that implementation reflects intent. It was never our plan to have key 
conservation programs act as donors for others. We

[[Page H10909]]

need to correct this problem, and that is exactly what S. 2856 will do.
  In fiscal year 2003, there were significant contributions being made 
by EQIP, Farmland Protection, WHIP, and the GRP to the Conservation 
Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program. EQIP donated $57.6 
million, Farmland Protection donated $18 million, WHIP gave $5.6 
million, and Grasslands Reserve gave $9.5 million.
  In my home State of Pennsylvania, these conservation programs are 
extremely important.
  In fiscal year 2003, Pennsylvania received $8.4 million to fund 293 
contracts throughout the EQIP program. There were actually 1,238 
unfunded contracts totaling $35.4 million. In 2004, Pennsylvania 
received $11.9 million, a significant increase, but not enough to fund 
all of the contracts that are on hold.
  The problem is the same for Farmland Protection, which is critical to 
Pennsylvania. In 2003, Pennsylvania received $4.9 million to protect 
6,266 acres. In 2004, the State received less, approximately $4 million 
for the program.
  Allowing vital programs such as EQIP and Farm and Ranchland 
Protection to be donors for other conservation programs only makes the 
funding backlog worse.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2856 and implement 
technical assistance funding for agriculture conservation programs the 
way in which Congress intended.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Holden) for his contribution, as well, to this effort, and also more 
especially thank him for the kind words he has extended to our 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has served this 
Congress with distinction for 26 years, the last 8 of which as the 
ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. He is known across the 
country as somebody who has helped American agriculture.
  He worked with my predecessor, our colleague Congressman Combest, his 
neighbor, former neighbor in Texas, to write the last farm bill which 
has been a noteworthy success in the first almost 4 years now of its 
implementation. He is somebody that I will miss as my partner in 
working with American agriculture, and I thank him and commend him for 
more than a quarter century of service to the people of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), 
and I thank my chairman for the kind words. I do believe this is the 
last time that I will occupy this mike. I thought it was so a few weeks 
ago, but it was not; we had one more shot. But I do very much 
appreciate the kind words that have been said, and we will miss this 
place. Mr. Speaker, we will miss you. You do an excellent job of 
conducting House business. Every time you handle the gavel, you do it 
in a way that is very fair and very professionally done.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure serving with you, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I would be less than honest to not say 
that I would much rather have had the titles reversed, but that was not 
to be. And were it not to be, then I appreciate the fact that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has maintained the same 
bipartisan, nonpartisan activities on his part that has made the House 
Committee on Agriculture one of the few committees of this body that 
still works in the way in which I think our forefathers intended that 
it work: full consultation.
  Listening to some of the previous comments about staff and what have 
you, I can honestly say that we have never had that problem on the 
House Committee on Agriculture, to the best of my knowledge. Our 
staffs, both committee and subcommittee, have always worked together in 
a way in which we put forward the quality work that I believe this 
committee has put forward to this House in the 26 years that I have had 
the privilege of serving here.
  I want to thank my staff, those who are with me on the floor, and 
those who are not, who have worked and served with me, some of them my 
entire 26 years. We cannot do without staff. Many times they get the 
blame for things that go wrong, and we get the credit for things that 
go right. But day in and day out, this body cannot operate without the 
professional staff, and I want to thank my staff and thank the majority 
staff. Because I truly, truly mean it when I say what I already said a 
moment ago about the manner in which the House Committee on Agriculture 
has worked.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2856. 
This important legislation clarifies Congress's intent in the last Farm 
bill--that administrative costs needed to implement voluntary 
conservation programs should flow from the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and not from the working lands programs themselves. It is crucial that 
we pass this bill today otherwise scarce conservation funds will once 
again be lost.
  Mr. Speaker, USDA has diverted more than $200 million from four 
working lands conservation programs. Specifically, USDA diverted 
precious funds from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
(EQIP), the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), the 
Grasslands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
(WHIP) to pay for administrative costs.
  The 2002 Farm Bill clearly intended USDA to use mandatory funds from 
the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay for the administrative costs of 
two land retirement programs. The plain language of the statute and 
legislative history, including a critical colloquy, support this 
interpretation of the Farm Bill, and GAO concurred in a recent memo. 
But, government lawyers misinterpreted the 2002 Farm Bill and forced 
USDA to divert working lands funds.
  Despite the funds provided by the 2002 Farm Bill, most farmers and 
ranchers offering to restore wetlands and grasslands or offering to 
change the way they farm to improve air and water quality are still 
rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. For example, 
farmers and ranchers face $3 billion backlog when they seek financial 
assistance through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to 
improve water quality or wildlife habitat. These long lines only grow 
longer when funds are diverted.
  By providing new funds for working lands programs like EQIP and WHIP 
in the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress provided needed resources to help 
farmers manage working lands to produce food and fiber and 
simultaneously enhance water quality and wildlife habitat. For example, 
EQIP helps share the cost of a broad range of land management practices 
that help the environment, including more efficient use of fertilizers 
and pesticides, and innovative technologies to store and reuse animal 
waste.
  Lastly, because 70 percent of the American landscape is private land, 
farming dramatically affects the health of America's rivers, lakes and 
bays and the fate of America's rare species. Most rare species depend 
upon private lands for the survival, and many will become extinct 
without help from private landowners. When farmers and ranchers take 
steps to help improve air and water quality or assist rare species, 
they can face new costs, new risks, or loss of income. Conservation 
programs help share these costs, underwrite these risks, or offset 
losses of income.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to America's hardworking 
farmers and ranchers and I urge my colleague's support.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I have no further requests for time and, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2856, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2856.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________