[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4026-4028]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 4027]]

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 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

[[Page 4028]]

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.''

                          ____________________