Opening Statement - Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research

Opening Statement
Chairman Frank D. Lucas
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research
Hearing to Review Conservation Issues

Washington, D.C.- Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee's hearing to review conservation issues. Today's hearing is the first of several that this Subcommittee will hold to review the conservation title in preparation for the next farm bill that will be written by the House Committee on Agriculture.

The 2002 Farm Bill is the greenest one to date. This legislation created new voluntary incentive programs and increased funding for conservation programs by more than 80 percent. This historic legislation increased the acreage allowed for sign-up under land retirement programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). It also dramatically increased the annual funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other incentive and cost share programs. In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill created the new Conservation Security Program (CSP) --- further moving the trend of the conservation title towards more working lands programs.

Farmers and Ranchers, through the assistance and incentives of these programs, have voluntarily worked to help reduce soil erosion, increase wetlands, improve water quality, and preserve farmland and wildlife habitat. The environmental gains produced are a testament to our producers who truly are the most dedicated conservationists.

However, as we have learned throughout the past few years, the Conservation title is not without its challenges. I have had my doubts about CSP from the very beginning, and it comes as no surprise that this program has not been implemented as Congress intended it to be. CSP was meant to be a flexible, national program, but due to constraints imposed by Congress and the Administration this program has become very targeted and complex. I intend to take a very serious look at this program during this and future hearings.

To ensure the future relevance of conservation programs, we must make sure they meet the ever-changing needs of producers. Contracts for over 28 million acres in CRP are set to expire before 2010. FSA has worked diligently, reenrolling much of the acceptable land. This brings to mind a few questions:
- At what acreage should we cap CRP?
- What will be done to the land that comes out of retirement?
- And how do we ensure that our truly sensitive lands remain in the program to meet our soil, water, and wildlife habitat conservation goals?
There are already many ideas floating around on how conservation programs can help solve our nation's energy crisis. I have even heard Members of the Agriculture Committee state that they will advocate the planting of switch grass on CRP acres.

Let me be very clear: I am not advocating any change in the way CRP or any other conservation programs work. Many of these ideas will be put forth today, and I am open to discussing the many policy options that will be brought to the table in today's hearing and future hearings.

I can not speak about conservation without the issue of technical assistance rearing its ugly head, and I suspect we will hear much about that today. Providing the participants of conservation programs with the necessary financial and technical assistance (TA) is essential to the success of conservation practices. I have worked hard to make sure that each conservation program has adequate TA dollars, and I will continue to examine the progress of using technical service providers in lieu of NRCS and FSA staff, as well as working to streamline the application process. The delivery system is the life-line to ensuring the success of conservation programs.

The final picture of the next Conservation Title is still very unclear. It comes as no surprise to anyone inside and outside the beltway that the budget situation remains tight. Writing a Farm Bill and conservation title within our existing budget constraints is a reality we must face. So, before we start developing new programs and looking for ways to spend additional dollars, we must first look within the current programs to make sure they are producing the environmental benefits we intended. Programs must be examined for common goals and, if necessary, combined to prevent overlap and redundancy. Combining programs does not mean that activities conducted by a current program will cease; it simply means we are streamlining the process, the implementation, and administration of programs to make more money available for on-the-ground activities.

Most importantly, it is imperative that we allow these programs to be accessible to all qualified parties by reducing backlogs. Programs under Title II had a sizeable reduction after budget reconciliation; however proponents of these programs must do a better job of making their priorities known to the appropriators.

Today, Mark Rey, the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, and Teresa Lasseter, Administrator for the Farm Service Agency, will testify about the implementation and management of the conservation programs. We will also hear from conservation, producer, and wildlife groups that represent the very constituents these programs affect. When preparing for this hearing, I gave our witnesses a very simple task; tell us what in the 02 Farm Bill is working --- what is not working --- and what priorities you have for the conservation title of the next farm bill. Today's testimony will be broad, but extremely helpful as we begin to outline the next conservation title.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony.

http://www.house.gov/list/hearing/ok03_lucas/conshearopeningst.html