U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–425 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–820

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 7, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

VERNIE HUBERT, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Agricultural Conservation Programs ..................................................................... 1

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

Panel I 

Johnson, John, Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, Farm Service 

Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC .............................. 4

Knight, Bruce, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ................................................................ 3

Panel II 

Andrew, James O., Andrew Farms, on behalf of the Iowa Soybean Association, 

Jefferson, Iowa ..................................................................................................... 33

Kennamer, Dr. James Earl, Senior Vice President for Conservation Programs 

National Wildlife Federation, Edgefield, South Carolina ................................. 28

Sims, Olin, President Elect, National Association of Conservation Districts, 

McFadden, Wyoming ........................................................................................... 31

Spronk, Randall, Spronk Brothers III, Chair, National Pork Producers Council Environmental Policy Committee, Edgerton, Minnesota ............................. 35

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 50

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. ..................................................................................... 55

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L. ................................................................................. 57

Salazar, Hon. Ken ............................................................................................ 59

Andrew, James O. ............................................................................................ 117

Johnson, John ................................................................................................... 85

Kennamer, James Earl .................................................................................... 97

Knight, Bruce .................................................................................................... 60

Sims, Olin .......................................................................................................... 108

Spronk, Randall ................................................................................................ 120

QUESTION(S) AND ANSWER(S): 

Kennamer, James Earl: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Blanche Lincoln ........................... 136

(1)

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 9 a.m., in room SR–328A of the Russell 

Senate Office Building, the Honorable Saxby Chambliss, chairman 

of the committee, presiding. 

Senators PRESENT. Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Thomas, Talent, Crapo, Harkin, Nelson, Salazar, Baucus. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Good morning. Our hearing will come to 

order this morning. 

Let me just make a quick announcement. We’ve got some scheduling issues this morning that we’re going to have to deal with. 

First of all, let me say to our witnesses, thank you for being here, 

No. 1, but thank you for also being willing to rearrange from a 9:30 

or 10 hearing back to 9. 

We have the president of Latvia speaking this morning to a joint 

session. We also have a vote at 10 that we have got to deal with. 

What my intention is that we will start this morning. I’m going to 

ask all members to submit their statements for the record. 

Senator Thomas and all of our witnesses, if you will, please limit 

your statement to 5 minutes. We’re going to go as long as we can, 

right up to the 10 vote. We’ll take that vote to go vote. 

Some members will move on to the joint session with the president of Latvia. I’m going to come back here to conclude this. This 

hearing is too important not to have it concluded this morning. So 

to our witnesses, that’s kind of our tentative schedule. Again, we 

thank you for being here. 

Over the past 20 years, Congress has increased the nation’s investment in agricultural conservation. In the 1980’s there were just 

a few programs. Today, there are 20. Producers now have a wide 

variety of programs to address their conservation wildlife and environmental concerns. Over the same time period, we have seen the 

support for farm and private late conservation grown in Congress 

and with the public. 

Many have noted the 2002 Farm Bill was the single most significant commitment of resources toward conservation on private lands 

in the nation’s history. Even with the annual limitations imposed 

by the appropriations process, conservation funding increased 

about $720 million from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2006. 

With this new funding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has 

enrolled about 750,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, 

2

and now has oversight responsibility for more than 2 million acres 

under easement and WRP and other programs. The Department is 

managing nearly 40 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program, and it has signed about 182,000 Environmental Quality Incentive Program contracts. 

There are some good and exciting things happening in conservation. For example, late last month, Secretary Johanns announced 

the total soil erosion on cropland decreased 43 percent from 1982 

to 2003. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service reports that it has 

helped 1 million producers with their conservation needs since 

2002. Producers are enthusiastic about conservation and want to 

participate as can be seen by the enormous backlogs to the programs. 

However, in anticipation of beginning conservation hearings on 

the reauthorization of the 2002 Farm Bill, there are some questions 

that this Committee, which has oversight, needs to ask: Are conservation programs really helping producers solve problems and 

improve environmental quality? How do we measure conservation? 

Does USDA have the right infrastructure in place to deliver and 

monitor the programs? Is there a way we can better utilize conservation programs to enhance alternative energy production? 

Are we managing the land that we have under contract and easement? Is our conservation policy achieving the goals that we think 

and want it to achieve, and are there things that we could do better? 

These are not easy questions to answer, but by establishing 

where we are today we will be better able to look forward and plan 

for the future. There has been a good deal of discussion about the 

Doha round and what it will mean for our existing conservation 

and commodity programs. 

There are a lot of misconceptions or misperceptions about what 

qualifies as an acceptable ‘‘Green Box’’ program and what does not, 

particularly in regard to conservation programs. I challenge the entire conservation community to think about those questions, especially as this Committee begins to prepare for the next farm bill. 

We have seen the Federal investment in conservation grow in the 

past, and I expect we will continue to see it grow. Just as producers 

want to be good stewards of their land, we need to ensure that we 

are good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. This means Congress 

must put in place the right conservation policies and programs. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and working with you to build 

upon our success in conservation and ensuring that we are on the 

right path in the future. 

We will be hearing from, first of all, on the first panel Mr. Bruce 

Knight, chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, here in Washington; and Mr. John 

Johnson, deputy administrator for Farm Programs from the Farm 

Service Agency, also at the U.S. Department of Agriculture here in 

Washington. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you to the panel this morning. Thank 

you for coming, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Knight, we will start with you. 

3

STATEMENT OF BRUCE KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss conservation programs in Title II of the farm bill. The 2002 

Farm Bill pledged more than $17 billion over 10 years for conservation. It emphatically demonstrates your commitment to locally led 

cooperative conservation on working agricultural lanes. To put it 

simply, our job at the Natural Resources Conservation Service is 

helping people help the land. 

Working lands conservation programs are unique among agricultural programs in that they are specifically designed to produce 

multiple benefits. First, farmers or ranchers who install conservation practices improve their land and enhance their natural resources. Second, the public also receives many benefits: a better, 

cleaner environment; increased biological diversity; and a scenic 

landscape, to name just a few. 

Conservation investments also lead to stronger rural economies. 

Since 2002, NRCS has provided assistance to 1 million farmers and 

ranchers. Working with our partners, we have applied conservation 

on more than 130 million acres of working farm and ranchland 

under the EQIP Program alone. We have also helped farmers apply 

more than 14,000 comprehensive nutrient management plan. Over the past 4 years, we have invested $6.6 billion directly with 

farmers and ranchers. Those same landowners and partners have 

added an additional $2.8 billion, for a total investment of more 

than $9.4 billion in conservation through 2005. 

The 2002 Farm Bill brought us new programs and new opportunities, and we have responded with new tools and streamlined the 

Agency management to serve farmers and ranchers more effectively as well as more efficiently. 

For example, from 2003 to 2006, we have worked with more than 

2,500–plus technical service providers. These are our own conservation outside consultants who are providing the equivalent of nearly 

520 staff years to supplement our staff in serving our customers. 

Let me, briefly, review our achievements from the four major 

farm bill programs. First, the Conservation Security Program in an 

effort to reward the best and motivate the rest began with 18 pioneer watersheds in 2004, and with yesterday’s release of the 2006 

accomplishments we have accepted another 4,404 contracts of the 

over 8,500 offers that were offered last year or this year in 60 watersheds. This program now spans 280 watersheds nationwide, covering 14.6 million acres, investing in the management of over 

19,000 land stewards to achieve even greater environmental 

progress. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, $165 million invested, 

9,500 agreements covering 1.4 million acres of improved wildlife 

habitat, a portfolio of easement programs designed to protect and 

preserve prairie, grassland, and wetland ecosystems and preserve 

working farms and ranches. 

First, the Grassland Reserve Program has nearly 380,000 acres 

enrolled in easements. The Wetlands Reserve Program, nearly 

750,000 acres have been contributed toward the president’s goal of 

4

3 million acres of wetlands restored, protected, or preserved by 

2009 with an inventory now approaching 2 million acres. 

The Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program, more than 

449,000 acres now preserved in perpetuity from future development. And, of course, our biggest program, EQIP, the ‘‘Environmental Quality Incentives Program,’’ where we have invested nearly $3.1 billion, benefiting close to $185,000 participants from fiscal 

year 2002 to 2006 alone. 

NRCS has also worked to help livestock producers meet their environmental challenges, applying more than 14,000 Comprehensive 

Nutrient Management Plans since 2002. Undergirding all of this is 

our mainstay program that provides planning assistance and conservation technical assistance. 

I want to touch on some management reforms that have either 

increased our efficiency or helped us direct more dollars in a better 

service to our customers. First and foremost is increased transparency, resulting in greater accountability and a better understanding of our programs by our customers and hopefully by those 

who are looking at the efficiency of our programs. 

Streamlined payment processes and reduced paperwork for our 

customers, we have saved nearly 330 staff years alone through 

those efforts; establishing a process for rapid watershed assessment, taking what was once a multiyear program process down to 

6 months. 

The Web Soil Survey: our soil surveys are now available 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week via the Web. We have put out as much information in the last 10 months through the Web as we’ve done 

through the last 10 years. 

Conservation programs on working agricultural lands benefit 

both producers and the public, supporting sustainable agriculture 

and enhancing the environment. As we move forward, NRCS will 

emphasize cooperative conservation, a watershed approach, as well 

as a market-based approach to helping people help the land. 

I thank the chairman and the members of the committee for the 

opportunity to appear today and for your ongoing support and attention to implementing the conservation provisions of the 2002 

Farm Bill. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions the members may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight can be found on page 60 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. All right. Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN JOHNSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR FARM PROGRAMS, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, we appreciate the opportunity to review the operation 

of the farm bill’s conservation programs as implemented by the 

Farm Service Agency. 

I am pleased to report to the Committee this morning that there 

have been significant accomplishments under the Conservation Reserve Program since the 2002 Farm Bill. FSA has implemented the 

president’s directive to re-enroll and extend contracts for more than 

5

28 million acres of land, which were scheduled to expire from 2007 

to 2010. More than 84 percent of the producers with expiring 2007 

contracts have elected to re-enroll or extend their contracts. 

The Department just announced this week that we have accepted 

1 million acres in this spring’s general sign-up in addition to the 

2.9 million acres accepted since 2002. Total enrollment now stands 

at 36.7 million acres with annual rental payments to producers totaling $1.8 billion annually. 

These acres have reduced soil erosion by 450 million tons, reduced nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment leaving the field by 

well over 85 percent and sequestered over 48 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide on an annual basis. 

CRP contributes to increased wildlife populations as well including more than 2 million additional ducks annually in the Northern 

Prairie, recovered Sage and Sharp-Tailed Grouse populations in 

Eastern Washington, increased Ring-Necked Pheasant populations, 

as well as increased grassland bird populations. 

CRP is building upon these successes with several initiatives including enrollment of 100,000 acres recently in the Presidential 

Quail Initiative designed to create habitat for quail upland birds 

and other species. We have executed agreements with Pheasants 

Forever, Ducks Unlimited, and the National Wild Turkey Federation to jointly work toward achieving mutual program objectives. 

Fourteen new CREP agreements, ‘‘Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program’’ agreements, were signed with state governments to improve both water quality and quantity, create wildlife 

habitat, and control erosion on more than 800,000 acres. Three of 

these targeted water conservation as their primary focus. Combined, the agreements with Colorado, Idaho, and Nebraska, provide 

for enrollment of up to 235,000 acres with projected water savings 

of $360,000 acre feet annually. 

One of the Farm Service Agency’s first Web-based applications 

was developed using GIS technology to enroll land in CRP. This 

upgrade has improved workload management for our county offices, 

saved millions of dollars of implementation costs and increased the 

accuracy of our work. 

A 10–state pilot program has been developed for private sector 

technical assistance, which is scheduled to begin late this summer. 

Finally, later this month, FSA will roll out a $404 million Emergency Forestry CRP program to restore more than 700,000 acres of 

private forestland damaged by the 2005 hurricanes. 

FSA also implements the emergency conservation program to 

provide emergency funds to help farmers and ranchers rehabilitate 

farmland damaged by natural disasters and implement emergency 

water conservation measures during periods of severe drought. 

Since the 2002 Farm Bill was passed, FSA has allocated more than 

$500 million in assistance including the funds appropriated by 

Congress for the 2005 hurricanes. 

The Grass Roots Source Water Program administered by FSA 

was also authorized under the 2002 Farm Bill, and more than $13 

million has been distributed to assist rural communities with protecting their drinking water sources. 

Under the Grassland Reserve Program administered jointly with 

NRCS, FSA has enrolled almost 2,600 contracts and obligated alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30425.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
6

most $93 million in annual rental payments. Looking forward to 

the 2007 Farm Bill, while environmental indicators suggest much 

progress and resource conservation has been made, many challenges remain and new issues continue to emerge, they include: nutrient enrichment and hypoxia in some waterways; conflicts over 

water availability for agricultural, environmental, and urban uses; 

reducing greenhouse gas concentrations through carbon sequestration; and developing sources of renewable energy and bio-based 

fuels. Many people are asking if there is an appropriate interface 

between CRP in our nation’s efforts to address these concerns. 

Other broad policy considerations include identifying specific 

goals for water quality, wetlands restoration, wildlife habitat, air 

quality, soil erosion, and recovery of threatened and endangered 

species. 

Now, attention should also be given to the resources needed to 

accomplish these goals. The use of information technology is vital 

for cost-effective program delivery. We recognize that as programs 

become more sophisticated in targeting limited resources, we must 

become more proficient in developing more elaborate software. 

There is, however, intense competition for IT funds which could impact farm bill implementation. 

A few program considerations in a CRP that could be examined 

are whether land expiring from a CRP contract should be considered eligible for re-enrollment, even if that land is no longer capable of being cropped due to an easement, conversion to trees, or 

other factors. 

Also, should certain conservation practices such as wetlands and 

buffers be exempt from the statutory 25 percent cropland limitation, and should the standards for waiving that 25 percent cropland 

limitation be modified? Also, is there an appropriate nexus between 

CRP and bio-energy production? 

As Congress debates the upcoming farm bill, we hope consideration is given to improving our existing programs, funding WTO 

consistent green payments that enhance environmental benefits, 

encouraging private-sector markets for environmental services, and 

emphasizing a voluntary approach for conservation over a more 

regulatory approach. We look forward to working with you on these 

critically important issues. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson can be found on page 

85 in the appendix.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, gentlemen. Both of you were 

almost on time. That’s pretty good for two guys from the USDA. 

Senator Harkin. 

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry I 

am not on time. I apologize for being late. Every Wednesday morning I have an Iowa breakfast. We seem to have a lot of Iowans in 

town this week. So I apologize for being late. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. They knew this hearing was going on, 

talking about CSP and CRP. 

Mr. HARKIN. That’s it. Oh, some of them are there, too. They 

probably just came in the door back there, I suppose. 

7

I just want to thank you for holding this hearing on conservation 

programs. When I was chair of this Committee in the 2002 Farm 

Bill, we worked very closely. Well, you were in the House at the 

time on the House Ag Committee, and we worked closely with you 

and the other members of the House Ag Committee to hammer out 

really strong conservation provisions in the farm bill. I think we 

have every reason to be proud of what we’ve done. 

I know we have on the second panel Jim Andrew of Jefferson, 

and I look forward to his testimony. I would ask that my statement 

be made as a part of the record, and I won’t read the whole thing, 

Mr. Chairman. 

It’s clear, I think, to us that the Doha round, I still have hopes 

that it is going to be concluded successfully, that we are in the 

world trading position now, that we’re a part of WTO, that the old 

ways of doing things are going to have to change. 

In the past, from the New Deal on, we paid farmers based on 

what they grew and how much they grew. I think that’s giving way 

now, and the shift in the last farm bill was to start paying farmers 

on how they grow, ‘‘green payments,’’ the Europeans call it, which 

are fully compatible with our obligations under WTO. 

Now we see a whole new realm of productivity in this country, 

not for food nor fiber but for energy, for renewable energy. With all 

of the cropland that we have in CRP and other areas, how can we 

utilize now the productive capacity of America for renewable energy, at the same time conserving our soil and our water and providing for clean air and providing for wildlife habitats. 

It is possible to do all that. We can meet our demands for food 

and fiber and at the same time meet the growing demand that 

we’re going to have for renewable energy production. That is really 

some of the things that we tried to get started in the 2002 Farm 

Bill. 

I’m going to be asking some questions again of Mr. Johnson 

about the CRP stuff and also Bruce Knight. I must say that I agree 

with you when you said that the Conservation Security Program is 

the future. 

While I have been somewhat critical of the Department in the 

past for some of the early implementation and stuff, I recognize it 

was a new program. It needed to be fleshed out a little bit. 

My biggest gripe is with the Congress that keeps cutting the 

money out of the program and putting caps on it to the point where 

next year we may not have one new sign-up in the program because of the caps that have been put on the program by the Congress. 

I do give the Agency credit for correcting some of the earlier 

missteps by making the program work better for farmers and 

ranchers, but I think we’ve just go to do more to ensure that this 

innovative program achieves its full potential. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I ask again that 

the rest of my statement be made a part of the record. 

(COMMITTEE INSERT:) 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Without objection. 

Gentlemen, Section 2005 of the 2002 Farm Bill required the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture to develop a plan to coordinate land retirement and working land conservation programs and to submit a 

8

report to the House and to the Senate Ag Committees. That report 

was due December 31, 2005, and that report is 6 months overdue. 

When can we expect it? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We, the Department, should be able to deliver that 

report to you in the very near future. We are in the departmental 

clearance process on it. Both of the agencies, their respective work 

has been done, and it’s just a matter of clearance at this stage. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. All right. Well, that’s a very vague answer. Give me a time line. Are we talking about 30 days? Sixty 

days? What’s the time line? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I would certainly be willing to do my best to deliver 

it to you within 30 days. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. We will call you. Gentlemen, again, this 

is directed to whichever one is best to answer it. What is the average administrative cost per acre or contract for each of our environmental programs, our conservation programs? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I can submit for the record the administrative costs 

or the technical assistance costs for each of the programs that we 

administer at NRCS. The one that folks focus on the most, of 

course, is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

At the beginning of the 2002 Farm Bill, the administrative costs 

would have run around 28 to 29 percent. We have been able to 

bring that down to about 22 percent. That varies somewhat by 

project-by-project. Those things that require a great amount of engineering, of course, have high costs where you’re doing the engineering to construct a lagoon or lay out the terraces. 

Because of the efficiencies, we have been able to do in the administration side of things with the new software and the technology, 

we’ve got a new program called ‘‘ProTracts,’’ that has been able to 

save about 330 staff years on the implementation side of things 

alone, and that’s what’s been able to bring these costs down. 

The next stage for us is a national uniform ranking tool that 

would eliminate errors and speed up the delivery costs for the programs as well, but on EQIP it was right around 29 percent. It’s 

down to 22 percent. I will submit for the record for WRP, the wildlife habitat incentive program, each of the programs we administer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to provide that 

on a contract basis or a per acre basis for the record. I don’t have 

the exact number with me, but I would simply reiterate what the 

chief has said. We have collaborated with NRCS to refine the technical assistance needed for CRP and have come up with increased 

efficiencies and reduced the workload on both NRCS as well as 

FSA staff in administering that program. 

The GIS tool I mentioned that we have implemented has saved 

us over $16 million at sign-up time. It has reduced manual entries 

from a thousand manual entries down to a hundred, a 90 percent 

reduction in manual entries, with a corresponding reduction in 

error rates. So we are taking every advantage of automation as 

well as just some common-sense provisions with NRCS that administrative costs. We will be glad to provide those numbers to you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. OK. Mr. Knight, you mentioned in your 

testimony and you just stated again that you saved ‘‘330 staff 

years.’’ What does that mean? 

9

Mr. KNIGHT. Those would be full-time equivalents for staff if you 

estimate an average hiring cost of running around $100,000 a year. 

So you’re talking about significant savings on an annual basis that. 

Every dime we are able to save in program administration costs because of our direct charge system in turn means additional contracts we are able to put on the ground. 

Our average EQIP contract is around $20,000 a year or smaller 

with an individual, and so every time I save $20,000 costs that’s 

one more contract we are able to put on the ground. These savings 

have amassed a significant increase in contract delivery for us. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, Obviously our goal as we write 

every farm bill is to ensure that the money goes to the farmer for 

these critically important programs. The more we can save, from 

an administrative standpoint, obviously I think you gentlemen 

know the happier members are on the Hill, and our farmers are 

better able to really utilize these programs. So that’s a critically 

important issue that we need you to continue to work on. 

I’ve got a number of other questions, but I’m going to because of 

the time constraints go to Senator Harkin at this time. 

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have kind of three questions I want to cover: one, the Contract Security Program, EQIP, and CRP. Mr. Knight, again I just 

want to thank you for taking charge of the CSP. The work that 

you’ve been doing on correcting some of the earlier missteps, I 

think it’s moving ahead fine now. Although, as you know, I still 

have a problem with the watershed-based approach on this. 

Because what happens is if you’re in a watershed and you qualify 

for a Tier I, you may have a neighbor that’s down the road that 

may not be in the watershed. They may actually be doing more 

conservation work than you, but they don’t qualify for it because 

they are not in the watershed. Well, we know all that. 

My question is, how long—and if you can’t answer it today, if 

you’d just get back to me, I would appreciate it—how many years 

would it take NRCS to offer CSP on every watershed at least once, 

on every watershed? If you can’t, if you’d just get back to me on 

that, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I will recalculate that and get back to you on the 

record on that, sir. Our original intent, as you know, was to be able 

to do it once every 8 years. 

Mr. HARKIN. Eight years, yes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. But because of some of the restrictions on spending, 

we have probably fallen off that 8–year schedule. 

Mr. HARKIN. Well, the other thing I need to know, Bruce, is how 

much would it cost to put the program back on track to cover every 

watershed by 2011, which would basically be our 8 years? How 

much money would it take to put it back on track so that we could 

get it at least once to every watershed in the country? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We will provide that calculation for the record for 

you. 

Mr. HARKIN. I need to know it. Last, a lot of complaints had to 

do with, and I have contacted you about this in the past, the signups always come in the spring. That’s when farmers are busiest. 

They don’t have time to pay attention to it. Is there any way that 

10

we can get the sign-ups completed no later than February, let’s 

say, rather than continuing into the spring? 

Mr. KNIGHT. That is certainly our objective. It has been a major 

effort to move sign-ups for all the programs into the winter 

months. We were successful in that this year, completing EQIP 

prior to the spring planting and WHIP prior to spring planting. 

In most parts of the country, we beat the clock on CSP, but it 

was not a good time for the more Southern states. We will this 

summer release states to start the selection process for the watersheds for next year, then proceed forward. We hope to be able to 

do CSP during the winter months. 

My desire is to be able to test run CSP one more year before 

farm bill considerations, so that you will be able to evaluate all the 

different things that are lessons learned from CSP for full consideration by the Committee for the 2007 Farm Bill. 

Mr. HARKIN. Again, Mr. Knight, let me just publicly thank you 

for your leadership on this issue of moving the CSP Program. You 

have operated under some pretty difficulty circumstances, not of 

your own making, as I’ve said earlier, but of our making here. 

Even with that, we proceeded ahead on it and I just want to compliment you for that in taking charge of that program. Hopefully, 

we’re going to be able to make some further advances in the next 

farm bill coming up to move it head even more aggressively. 

On EQIP, let me just ask you, and this again is a little bit parochial, but it seems odd to me that Iowa with one of the most intensively used agricultural landscapes on the planet is tenth in overall 

EQIP funding behind neighboring states like Kansas, Nebraska, 

and Minnesota. 

Well, basically what I’ve been told is that EQIP basically is 

skewed more to beef production than pork production. I think Mr. 

Spronk is going to speak to that later on. 

Again, my question is: when allocating EQIP funds to the states 

each year, how does NRCS determine which areas of the country 

have the greatest environmental needs? I’m concerned. I just wonder because with all of the hog production we have in Iowa why 

we’re tenth overall in EQIP funding. That may sound parochial, 

but it has to do with how these funds are allocated. 

Mr. KNIGHT. The fund allocations is certainly one of the thorniest 

challenges we face in how to put the dollars in the states for the 

efforts that are the most important nationwide. We have a set of 

four priorities on EQIP. 

Basically, they are very broad: it’s about clean water, soil, air 

quality, and wildlife habitat. Then, we have an allocation formula 

that now has about 30 different factors included in it. Trying to 

make a formula that is as scientific and knowledge-based as possible for allocation of those funds. 

We have made many improvements in those programs over the 

last few years. We have heavily weighted the allocation formula to 

the priority that the livestock sector is facing right now of compliance with the EPA rules as it pertains to the AFO/CAFO provisions. The number of animal units out there, they are either swine, 

poultry, or cattle heavily influence how many funds flow from state 

to state. 

11

Then, of course, we also have regional equity provisions that are in place, setting a desire to have at least $12 million in several 

states. That also has dollars shifting from one part of the country 

to the other. 

I had mentioned earlier that we are trying to make a very transparent process. We have now published these allocation formulas 

for review. This summer I’m also seeking through an RFP process 

a peer review to ensure that the allocation process is as valid as 

it could be. 

We have used internal guidance and professional knowledge for 

developing and constructing of these allocation formulas. I’m not 

going to outside peer review to make sure that we have as valid 

a structure as we can to respond to needs from year to year. 

One of the things that I think that will be important for people 

to realize as we have them constructed today, I do anticipate that 

as a particular priority need for the Nation is addressed, a state’s 

allocation could in turn start to decline as we try to address needs 

somewhere else. 

The heavy weighting we have now to the EPA AFO/CAFO rule, 

once we’ve swallowed doing all of those comprehensive nutrient 

management plans, which we’re doing through both CTA and 

EQIP, may in fact cause the allocations to shift around the country. 

The jury is still out on how well that’s going to work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have one more question, but it will wait until the second round. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a good subject for 

our hearing, and I’m glad to do that. Certainly, I am pleased with 

the emphasis that is being put on conservation. I particularly want 

to welcome Olin Sims here from Wyoming, who not only do we 

have ranchers as well as farmers in this program you know. So it’s 

nice to have him here, and we do have a little different view. 

Just a general reaction maybe from both of you, I think we have 

I think about nine different programs, isn’t that correct, conservation programs? 

Mr. KNIGHT. In the case of NRCS, we now have 22 programs to 

administer. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. I think your number is right, but there 

are a lot of subprograms. 

Mr. THOMAS. I guess I’m wondering, we’re going to be looking for 

more efficiency and more ways to do more. Which one of these programs is used the most? Could they be combined? Would it be more 

efficient, managerially, to have less programs? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Those programs where we can do that administratively within the constraints, we’re moving forward with that. The 

cost-share programs, which are EQIP plus the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, then the subprograms that the Chairman mentioned, ground and surface water conservation in the Klamath 

Basin all within EQIP, those are all cost-share programs. 

We are using the same rules, the same manual, the same signup trying to move forward to putting as much similarity to those 

programs as we can so that we’re able to gain efficiencies there, but 

I do still need in many places different program managers because 

they are different programs by statute. 

12

We have a similar consideration with the easement programs. 

There is a great deal of variability between the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, and the 

Wetlands Reserve Program. We are trying to look for efficiencies 

that we can do by putting common rules between the easement 

programs, so that it becomes a portfolio that is more streamlined 

in the administration. 

Mr. THOMAS. That’s a good thing. Sometimes programs get a little protective internally and it’s hard to get as much efficiency 

among them as there could be. 

Mr. KNIGHT. That is very true. We have reorganized the internal 

management of the Agency along those broad categorical lines in 

order to reduce the tendency for the inside turf. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Johnson, do you have any comment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, our three programs—the Conservation Reserve Program, the Emergency Conservation Program, and the 

Grassroots Source Water Protection Program—have somewhat different focuses than we do part of the Grassland Reserve Program, 

which could be somewhat similar to CRP in some respects. 

The Emergency Conservation Program has a whole different intent and purpose than our Conservation Reserve Program, so I 

don’t see a real overlap there. The Grassroots Source Water Protection, it is a small program aimed at rural communities which has 

a distinct focus. In our small portfolio of programs, as compared to 

what the chief has to deal with, I don’t see a whole lot of overlap. 

Mr. THOMAS. OK. What would you say are the greatest challenges for you and producers in administering these conservation 

programs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My No. 1 challenge, and it’s beyond conservation 

but through all the farm subsidy programs I administer as well, is 

automation and IT investments in modernizing how we deliver programs. As we are asking our folks to do more with less repeatedly, 

I’ve got to provide them better automation. As I mentioned in my 

statement earlier, the competition for those resource dollars for IT 

investments is intense. 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, what’s the result? If doing what you want to 

do, would it reduce your administrative costs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe it would. As I mentioned, a very modest 

step we took forward in our utilizing GIS for CRP sign-up is to date 

we estimate about $16 million in sign-up administrative costs. I believe that’s just the tip of the iceberg of what could be realized, but 

it’s a major challenge. 

Mr. THOMAS. It is a challenge. The Senator from Iowa was talking about not wanting to reduce spending. We’re going to see reduced spending in all of government I hope, so we have to find 

ways to be more efficient and to make it work as productively as 

possible. 

In any event, really again speaking for more open space areas 

like Wyoming ranch areas where the conservation programs are is 

very important, probably even more important than the crop programs in terms of the future in preserving the land and all. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Salazar? 

13

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much and Ranking Member Harkin. Let me first say to Chief Knight and Mr. Johnson that I very 

much appreciate the efforts of USDA in Colorado and the conservation efforts you have on programs which have major acreage and 

supporting of farmers and ranchers throughout the state. 

I know we have significant acreage enrolled in CRP and we receive lots of assistance from EQIP and also CSP. In particular, I 

want to say that the Middle South Platte CSP Program is one that 

is working very well in the state of Colorado. 

It’s also an area that is in dire need of assistance because of 

what has happened with the shutdown of literally about a thousand wells, which has affected probably 10,000 to 30,000 acres of 

prime pond land up in that area. So I appreciate the work the 

USDA does in that regard. 

Let me just ask one very broad question for both of you. As we 

look at the rewrite of the conservation bill and what I think is 

going to be a significant interest of this Committee with respect to 

renewable fuels and renewable energy, how do you see the conservation programs tying in to what might be a goal that this Committee pushes forward with respect to renewable energy? I think 

you had alluded to that in your testimony, Mr. Johnson, so if you 

can just broadly answer that question, both of you, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, Senator. Thank you for the question. I 

think that topic is worthy of discussion, and there is a lot of interest in that subject. As I mentioned in my remarks, currently under 

the current authority that we have we utilize managed haying and 

grazing, which allows people to harvest biomass from CRP acreage 

on an interval no more often than once every 3 years. 

There is a reduction in the CRP rental payment in the year they 

do that harvesting. So currently today we have a limited ability to 

engage in harvesting biomass off of CRP acreage. The question remains: is that sufficient or should it be changed, altered, reduced, 

or expanded? Obviously, there is a lot of interest in that. 

I receive inquiries from producers as well as interest groups 

about everything from hardwoods to switchgrass to even some folks 

who have some unique ideas about oil seeds. Bottom line, there is 

lots of interest, but I think the question is worthy of debate and 

discussion. I don’t have the answer laid out for you here today, but 

it’s certainly something that merits discussion as we seek to minimize our dependence upon other sources of energy. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Would the notion, Mr. Johnson, be that if there 

was a biofuels project they could use some of the biomass coming 

out the lab, that may be the 3–year restriction would be one that 

would be lifted or adjusted in some way? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is one approach that could be considered. 

There are concerns about a critical mass that is needed to support 

some of these biomass energy plants, and you need a certain number of acres within a certain radius of that plant to make it viable. 

Whether CRP in and of itself could meet that need in any one 

region of the country is something that would have to be looked at. 

There may be other sources of that biomass besides the CRP acreage that could enter into that business plan for that facility, but 

those are things that certainly need to be looked at and discussed. 

14

Mr. KNIGHT. On the NRCS side, as it pertains to energy, the first 

priority was the here and now of energy conservation and the 

nexus of conservation practices and energy coming together. We 

saw an opportunity this winter with that, and released a tillage estimator that provided for folks with just three clicks on the 

website. 

The fuel savings associated with going from conventional tillage 

to no till. We saw that for a very typical operation in the High 

Plains, like from Colorado up to Montana, a wheat operation there 

would show $9,000 to $10,000 a year in annual savings by going 

from conventional till to no till. 

We followed that up a little later this winter with a fertilizer estimator to try to help producers with the same thing, to do the 

what-ifs of fertilizer of fall application versus spring, different 

forms of fertilizers or application. There is a tremendous amount 

of change occurring with inoculants and inhibitors. 

We worked closely with the fertilizer industry on this, and are showing a lot of savings that can be done again in this $9,000, 

$10,000, $15,000 a year annual savings in fertilizer bills, and that 

in turn will reduce any potential nitrogen loadings. 

The fascinating thing is if you actually had 250 million acres nationwide under auto-steer technology instead of manual steering of 

our tractors, auto steer, you would save about $750 million a year 

in fertilizer costs, just with precision agriculture, never reducing 

those things. 

The next one we will release next week will be an irrigation estimator that will be, I expect, very widely used in Colorado and 

throughout the arid West to show the savings associated with 

water savings. If we save 20 to 30 percent on water savings, you‘‘re 

going to see savings in fuel pumping costs of as much as $52 to 

$100 an acre. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Knight. Do you have a summary 

that would set forth what the potential is with respect to energy 

conservation with the programs that you were just describing. 

Mr. KNIGHT. We certainly will. We will provide that for the 

record for you. 

Mr. SALAZAR. If you could, provide that for me and I’m sure for 

the rest of the members of the committee it would be helpful. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Crapo. 

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you as many have because the conservation title of the farm 

bill continues to be one of the key portions of that effort we’re undertaking now. 

First, Mr. Johnson, I just want to make a statement to you. It’s 

a thank you to you and to Secretary Johanns as well as the others 

at the Department who have put so much work into the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreement with the State of 

Idaho recently. 

As you know, that agreement which was signed on May 19th, 

which we talked about at previous hearings, envisions enrolling up 

to 100,000 acres of irrigated cropland in the Idaho Eastern Snake 

River Plain Aquifer. That could actually reduce irrigated water 

used by 200,000 acre feet annually. It’s going to be a very signifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30425.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
15

cant benefit in Idaho for water quality as well as wildlife habitat 

and a big assist for the farmers as well. So thank you very much 

for making sure that this happened. 

I just have one question for each of you, and it actually follows 

up on the question that Senator Salazar asked, and that is, I guess 

I would like you to just go a little further into the issue. Because 

as farmers and ranchers are facing increased pressures, to what extent are the farmers and ranchers being able to utilize these programs to address their energy needs? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I appreciate the follow-up question. The tillage, 

those estimators, have had phenomenal coverage. I can’t remember 

the exact number of producers who have gone through, but were 

well over the hundreds of thousands of producers who have used 

those estimators to be able to go through things. 

As I mentioned, we are about able to release the irrigation estimator. I also have one in process now for confined livestock operations, just because heating and cooling for confined livestock is a 

very energy-intensive operation as well. 

Then, we also have the opportunities that are coming forth in the 

Conservation Security Program, which specifically says we are supposed to be looking at energy conservation and renewable energy 

use. We have authority in there for an energy audit. There is a tremendous need for that throughout farm country to be able to respond quickly. We are finding that there is a real challenge in finding qualified auditors to be able to help people on energy audits on 

the farm. 

We do a small payment within CSP for renewable energy use as 

well as energy conservation. So that if you can prove that you used 

to use 15,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year, you have made these 

changes and you are now doing fewer, then we would do a small, 

admitted token payment in CSP, but it is intended to look at these 

conservation needs in a much more holistic manner—not just 

water, not just soil, but energy as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. From CRP’s perspective, obviously if a producer 

elects to enroll their land in CRP and plant to a conserving use 

cover, whether it be hardwoods or switchgrass or anything else, 

their energy consumption, in terms of tillage practices or fertilizer 

or whatever else, is going to be greatly reduced, so that will provide 

them a savings. That’s an economic calculation each producer 

makes on their own as to their best utilization of their land. 

Along with that, the 2002 Farm Bill did give us some special authority on CRP to allow the placement of *Windsor binds for energy generation on farms. That has been allowed on a case-by-case 

basis, decisions at county committee’s level. I can’t tell you the 

number of them around the country, but that is another alternative 

that relates to energy production on the farm. 

Mr. CRAPO. Well, thank you. I just would like to tell you I’ve 

held, either I or my staff have held, 25 or 30 town meetings across 

Idaho over the last, oh, six or 8 months or so to try to talk about 

the upcoming farm bill. 

One of the most common inputs that we are getting from those 

involved in production agriculture is that perhaps we should consider a very increase in our focus on an energy title or as well as 

16

the connection between energy and consumption issues and the utilization of other programs, particularly the conservation programs. 

Where we can achieve these two objectives, I think it would be 

very, very helpful. I encourage your focus on that as we work with 

you on developing our approach to the various titles of this next 

farm bill. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I appreciate that very much. If I could augment our 

earlier, both of our statements, one of the things that we have also 

done on the energy issue is we found that many people were slowing down implementation of existing EQIP contracts because of the 

escalating costs of energy. 

PVC pipe for a pipeline is very energy-intensive. Steel costs have 

gone up. So we have provided a special initiative to modify the payment levels under EQIP for some of those older contracts as trying 

to be responsive to the energy crisis. 

Mr. CRAPO. Well, thank you. That’s exactly the kind of thinking 

and the kind of action that I think we need to focus on as we try 

to assist in dealing with this issue. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Nelson. 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to suggest that I appreciate the move toward 

recognizing the critical areas of cattle, of the cattle industry in 

EQIP, giving that a high priority, recognizing that the cattle industry is facing a major challenge of complying with EPA requirements, so I appreciate that. 

I hope that you can continue to recognize the critical nature of 

that industry and the requirement for EQIP to be a major ally for 

the cattle industry to come into compliance and avoid having what 

would otherwise be a major disruption to the cattle industry, so I 

appreciate your taking that into consideration. 

I thought I would start off with something positive, but I’m not 

going to go to something negative, either. I just wanted to compliment you on it. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. NELSON. In your statement, Mr. Knight, you mentioned the 

changes in EQIP’s maximum payment limitations and other 

changes to the program. I know you have talked about this, but can 

you give us an idea of what this has meant to farmers and ranchers and whether or not these changes have actually saved money 

and how much, or do they just shortchange agriculture producers? 

Do the changes appear to be more beneficial to larger operations 

or smaller operations and overall how they affect the conservation 

goals that we all are pursuing? 

Mr. KNIGHT. There were quite a lengthy list of changes that were 

authorized in EQIP and the farm bill that have helped improve the 

implementation of the program. Because of the concerns from some 

of the larger operations, we can now go up to $450,000 per contract 

on EQIP. Yet, our average EQIP contracts, probably hovering 

around $20,000. So we can do the larger ones where needed. 

We have put checks and balances in on anything that goes up 

over $100,000 or $150,000, but you’re only talking about a few hundred a year that fall into that category. We have the—Mr. Nelson. 

Only a few hundred that would fall into the large? 

17

Mr. KNIGHT. Into the very large categories, but those are also 

very large environmental needs. 

Mr. NELSON. Sure. 

Mr. KNIGHT. We will also, in order to make sure that we are balanced, launch a limited resource producer initiative and put aside 

with a goal of about $10 million this year specifically targeted limited resource producers, making sure that we are flexible enough 

to be able to work in those communities as well. The response has 

been outstanding. So we are finding that we are making EQIP 

work on both ends of the spectrum. 

Our effort and our endeavor on EQIP is to make sure that is size 

neutral. We are trying to respond to addressing the environmental 

goals of a producer regardless of size of the operation to address 

the environmental needs in the community. It has been quite a 

challenge, but we are pleased with the results we have seen thus 

far. 

Mr. NELSON. Would you have any of that information? I don’t 

need to know the names of those individuals, but a breakdown of 

the large, the number of the large, and the number by category? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We will provide that for the record for you, a number of the large producers. I will also supplement that with a summation of how we have done with the limited resource initiative as 

well and attempt to break it out by livestock class, since most of 

them tend to be livestock operations that go into the larger funding 

category. 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. You discuss the benefits of the RC&D Programs and then mention that the president’s budget basically cut 

the funding in half and sought to half the number of RC&Ds. 

Can you explain in ways that we would understand the thinking 

behind the cuts in what appears to be a successful and important 

program? I guess when you get a program in place, having been 

a Governor putting programs in place, I am always concerned 

about seeing them cut when they are working. I might not support 

increasing the funding for it, but you sure have a difficulty for me 

to understand why and how you would cut it. 

Mr. KNIGHT. A resource development and conservation program 

is really very unique in that it tries to bring together the mutual 

goals of both economic development and conservation. 

I mean for all too long folks have tended to think of conservation 

and economic development as being mutually exclusive, and they 

are not. So what it tries to do is marry up economic creation opportunities with conservation objectives. I have visited a tire recycling 

plant in your home state of Nebraska, as an example, of responding 

to the needs there. 

The desire from the administration’s budget proposal this year 

was to send a clear signal that the intent is for these individual 

coordinators is to not have that to be an ongoing Federal commitment of the individual staff person. 

These councils, many of them, are very vibrant and are being in 

enough soft money that they should be able to stand alone so that 

we can start making investments into the other counsels that are 

on the wait list out there. 

We have been under flat funding for the last several years, and 

so we find that the RC&D movement is tending to be a closed comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30425.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
18

munity now. We are not able to bring in new ones. We are funding 

only the existing ones and continually having to constrict the funding on that because of that. 

The desire from the president’s budget was to send a signal that 

it’s time to think of this in new ways and try to move forward. We 

thought that sharing coordinators across council lines would be a 

good way of doing that. 

Mr. NELSON. Well, I thank you for your explanation. My time is 

up, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I’ll talk to Mr. Knight later and try 

to get a better idea of what the future is for this program. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Talent. 

Mr. TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciated your testimony. It seems to be a thoughtful attempt 

to implement these programs. Mr. Knight, I agree with you that 

conservation is not only consistent with economic development, I 

think there is a growing realization that the two are mutually dependent long-term. 

Senator Salazar and Senator Nelson asked several of the questions I was going to ask, so let me just make a comment and then 

just ask an open-ended question of you two. It would be good it 

seems to me, and I would like to almost like to say if ‘‘for once’’ 

we had, you know, across different committee jurisdictions and 

across the Congress a sustained and coordinated policy in an important area. 

I can see one developing in the Congress regarding energy. There 

seems to be pretty broad support for at least reasonable incentives 

and attempts to conserve, which several senators have asked about, 

and also for renewable fuels. 

I would hope that in your thinking over the course of the next 

6 months to a year, and keeping in mind that a new farm bill is 

probably on the way, that you all would be thinking and giving us 

your ideas about how we can move constructively in this direction 

in a new farm bill. 

I mean, what do you think we can do to adapt your programs, 

for example, to enhance the production of different kinds of renewables or to enhance the energy conservation efforts you’ve already 

been engaged in? So I think that would be useful. It certainly 

would be for me, and I suspect for others. 

OK. If you had, what would be for each of you, say, your top two 

priorities for these kinds of programs in a new farm bill? I mean, 

what would you like to see? I’ve heard you talk about, you know, 

assistance in new information technology. But I mean if the Congress would do the top two things that each of you wanted, what 

would they be? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I’ve got to first of all think of it. I appreciate the—

first off, my reaction to the energy issue, one of the things that I 

haven’t mentioned that is very key in mind, we’re seeing a wave 

of development on waste digesters where we are capturing the 

methane off of confined livestock units, off the manure, and converting that into energy or heat for many operations. 

We are seeing a large influx of funding both from NRCS in the 

EQIP Program and within rural development on waste digesters. 

There is a tremendous opportunity there if we look creatively up 

19

and down the scale of how to turn various waste streams into income streams as it pertains to energy. 

We also have our scientists working on being able to answer 

some of those questions of the imponderables of how sustainable 

can you harvest biomass, how sustainable is a grain-based conversion to ethanol off of soils under no till versus biomass—some of 

those sorts of things to really see most productive, least productive 

soils, to try to have the best possible status on that. Now, as to the 

top two priorities, it may be best at this stage——

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, let me just say it’s really a sign of 

how the Congress operates that these two witnesses are nonplused 

that a senator is actually asking them their opinion about something. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KNIGHT. We are plused [laughter]. 

Mr. TALENT. Look, I don’t want to put you on record with something—that was a friendly question. If you would rather wait and 

give it to me for the record later on, you can, or speak in general 

terms, that would be OK. 

Mr. KNIGHT. It would be best for us to wait at this time. The secretary has a very methodical process laid out for the listening sessions. 

Mr. TALENT. OK. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Those papers have been released from the results 

of that. The secretary has now released the risk management 

paper, a conservation paper will be released very shortly. That is 

going to even of itself just open the broad question and not represent administration policy. 

Mr. TALENT. All right, that will be fine. For the record, let me 

just add one comment, and then I’m done. Mr. Chairman, my time 

is almost up anyway. When you’re thinking about how to dovetail 

these programs best with both an energy conservation and renewable energy type goals, think in terms of, a little bit in terms of 

process. 

I don’t want to sound like a lawyer. But how can we change or 

adapt this process so as to help produce from the ground up, from 

these producers and from our local leaders, more of these ideas? 

Like, you were talking about the waste digesters, which I’m sure 

that probably came from the ground up, how can we change the 

systems of decisionmaking so that we are more open to these ideas 

and a quick response to them and implementation of the good 

ones? If you would think in those terms, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly. 

Mr. TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Before I go to Senator Baucus, let me just 

repeat the announcement I made before started, and that is we 

have a vote which I think has just been called or is about to be 

called. We also have a joint session, I think, starting at 11. 

Senator Harkin and I intend to adjourn to go vote probably after 

Senator Baucus completes his questioning. We are going to come 

back and complete this hearing. So any of you who wish to come 

back for either additional questions with this panel or questions for 

the second panel, obviously we will be here. 

Senator Baucus. 

20

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of you. I think basically the conservation 

programs are working pretty well we’ve got right here at home, 

and sure with some likable adjustments around the edges here and 

there, but by and large I think we are not too far off the mark. I 

might say that we received in Montana over $100 million in conservation payments. So it’s big; it’s important. 

Second, I think next to Texas we are the largest CRP state. 

That’s a mixed blessing as you well know, but still it is very, very 

large. About 90 percent of private land in Montana in one form or 

another is farmland. Two-thirds of our state is grazing land, the 

entire state, some is private and some is public. But this is very 

important to us. 

I like the idea of thinking about an energy title. The time is ripe, 

and I urge all of us to be thinking more seriously about how we 

would write that, what it should be. I’m stunned at the interest in 

developing, I don’t know how to pronounce the words, ‘‘cellulosic 

ethanol’’ products. You know, the figures I’ve seen, saving about 14 

billion—no, I’ve forgotten the figures. 

The point is we could be much more self-sufficient with the development of cellulose forms in production of ethanol. It is much 

more efficient in terms of sugar content. If you compare corn, much 

more efficient, if they can figure out how to do it with an ear of 

corn. So, I strongly recommend that. 

I might also, though, say that clearly commodity support payments in the Farm Program are a very important addition to conservation. It’s a proper balance that we’ve got to maintain here. I 

know you understand that and agree with that. Agriculture is our 

No. 1 industry. In my state, it’s about $2 billion worth. By Montana 

standards, that’s a lot. It’s critically important to Montana. I might 

say, too, that I urge you to think more about the Grassland Reserve Program. The program I think is about 245 million in Montana alone. I mean, we signed up for 200 million, applications for 

200 million, which indicates to me that demand nationwide could 

be higher than 254, I’ve forgotten what the number is, in the program. 

I would urge you to be thinking about expanding Grassland Reserve Programs. Senator Thomas and I have been working. It’s our 

idea and it’s going better, frankly, than I expected. 

Also, I would be kind of interested in your thoughts on how to 

address the problems with smaller communities caused in some respect by CRP. Because so much land is put in CRP that is not 

taken out of production that some of the smaller communities, at 

least in Montana and I think in other parts of the country, are 

hurting. 

Of course, it gets to the tradeoff between the younger farmers 

and the older farmers. The older farmers, yeah, they like the CRP; 

they can go South. The younger farmers say, ‘‘Whoa, I can’t buy because there is nothing there to get into. I want to get into agriculture, which is very difficult.’’

I’m just curious if you could give me some thoughts of how we 

might mitigate some of the adverse consequences, there is compensation and everything, the adverse consequences caused in 

small towns by CRP. 

21

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, the 2002 Farm Bill required us to submit 

a report on the economic impacts of CRP. Analysis was done by 

ERS, and I believe the report was submitted in 2004. Overall, from 

the big picture, it asserted that CRP did not have a negative impact on rural economies. It did acknowledge that there could be 

some isolated local impacts, but they were mitigated usually within 

a period of two or 3 years. 

So it remains a bone of contention in some parts of the country. 

I understand that. But from the best analysis that we have done, 

we don’t think that the overall impact is negative, and that’s what 

the Department reported back to Congress in 2004. 

Having said that, I think it is important as we pursue program 

implementation that we do it in such a way that we don’t unfairly 

compete in the marketplace for land, enticing it out of production. 

This past year we required all our state and counties to do a review of their soil rental rates because we do not want to unfairly 

bid against a neighboring farm or a rancher for that land to take 

it out of production. 

At the same time we don’t want to be below the market rate because if you aren’t competitive, then no one will put land into the 

conservation program, so it’s a matter of finding that balance. 

As you are probably aware, some of those rates were adjusted in 

Montana as well as some of our other Western states downward, 

and then in the Midwest some of those rates were increased. 

Across the country we are trying to level these things out and 

have our soil rental rates at the market price, because again we 

want to be competitive but not unfairly so. We don’t want Uncle 

Sam outbidding the local farmers, and at the same time we don’t 

want to be below the local cash rental rate. 

So it is a matter of finding a balance. We think we have done 

the best we can with the program, and that it does offer economic 

stimulus and returns to the rural communities in terms of recreation and hunting opportunities. 

I was visited by the game director from South Dakota, who was 

very concerned. They didn’t want to lose a single acre of CRP because of the economic benefit that pheasant hunting brought to 

South Dakota. So there are economic benefits that return to the 

rural community through CRP as well. It’s not a negative. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Well, I know that. I know it’s true. All the things 

you’ve said are true. I just urge you the community is very sensitive to the question that there are tradeoffs. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAUCUS. I just ask you to be sensitive to the tradeoffs. I’m 

out of town. I’ve got to got, but I do ask you to try to see if there 

is a way to increase the amounts for the Grassland Reserve Programs. It’s very important. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have spent what we were authorized to spend. 

Mr. BAUCUS. I know. But, I mean, you might just kind of go back 

through channels or whatever and say, ‘‘Hey, we need more here. 

The authorization needs to be a little higher here.’’

Mr. KNIGHT. I believe both agencies, we have looked for every 

creative way we can, but we are at the spending cap on the GRP 

until farm bill consideration. 

22

Mr. BAUCUS. I know you are. Right, I was just saying that you 

can buildup a case, ‘‘Hey, we need to expand that,’’ that would be 

helpful. 

Mr. KNIGHT. The grasslands look to be probably the most endangered ecosystem in North America. When you put the tall grass, 

mid-grass and short grass prairies together. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, we are going to adjourn to go vote. If you will take 

a break for a few minutes, we will be back. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. We will now resume our hearing by calling on Senator Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for missing the testimony of Mr. Knight and Mr. 

Johnson. Foreign Relations has taken a great interest in energy 

and dependence on foreign oil. We had Chairman Greenspan testify. He had a lot of good things to say about ethanol and about 

the cellulosity ethanol and the impact that ethanol can and will 

have in lessening America’s addiction to oil. So I apologize for not 

hearing the testimony. 

I have two issues that I just want to bring up. One, I do want 

to thank Mr. Knight properly on the record for the work that he 

does and the NRCS does. They are much appreciated in my state. 

Minnesota ranks tops in the country in terms of applicants and 

acres for WRP, for the ‘‘Wetlands Reserve Program.’’ I think we 

have more folks on a waiting list to sign up, than we even have 

in the program. There is great, great demand here. 

Here is my concern. I am going to probably ask witnesses in the 

next panel to address this also. On the one hand, you know, we 

want to be local. We talk about being local, but I get a lot of frustration from, or I hear a lot of frustration from my growers and 

producers, about disparity of interpretations of NRCS regulations 

between adjacent counties. That is pretty frustrating to folks. 

I know it’s a balancing act, but I wonder if you can help me kind 

of figure out whether there can be more uniformity in conservation 

program implementation over similar regions without losing that 

local flexibility? 

Mr. KNIGHT. [No microphone.] I appreciate the question. I am 

grateful to hear about the work that NRCS has been doing in Minnesota. 

[Microphone on.] We pride ourselves in having a locally led process, which is priority setting, done as close to the grassroots as possible, as well as making sure that our standards and practices determine how you implement something. 

What works in Northern Minnesota is very different than what 

works in Southern Minnesota, as you are well aware, so we try to 

have the flexibility for that to vary. However, the disparity across 

those lines need to be transparent and logical for an individual producer to see. 

The first course for us has to been to build transparency into our 

program implementation so that it makes sense to anybody. If it’s 

a black box, it appears to be unfair or maybe even discriminatory, 

23

and so our first level has been to make things as transparent as 

possible. 

All or our rules published on the Web so that everybody can have 

those. Most of our programs are backlogged, which means that we 

rank everything and we accept the program offering in EQIP that 

has the greatest environmental goods and services being delivered. 

Well, what we’ve done because of that is published the ranking 

process as well, so that everybody knows the ranking process before they submit an application, so that it fits in there. 

The practices and standards amass themselves in the ‘‘Field Office Technical Guide’’ that used to be about five binders like this 

[indicating], 3 inches wide, that were sitting only in the office that 

nobody could access unless you were an employee. 

Those are now on the Web so that everybody can see those practices and you can compare which practices are utilized in Northern 

Minnesota versus Southern Minnesota or, perhaps even more importantly, across state lines from Minnesota to Iowa, and so the 

first level of this is the transparency. 

You will hear from some of the panelists that follow me how difficult it is to really change some of these things, especially as it 

pertains to changing priorities for different classes of livestock. 

We appear to be doing a good job with the beef industry, but 

there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the swine industry because the practices don’t quite fit yet, and so it takes a continual 

effort to address those. 

The first level is transparency, next comes training and recognition from the individual areas. A third thing is to make sure that 

the ranking processes are fair. When we go to a national format for 

ranking, I think that will improve the fairness across county and 

state lines in the implementation of EQIP. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I appreciate your focus and attention to this. 

Mr. Johnson, let me just ask you: yesterday, USDA released the 

results for re-enrollment and extensions of CRP. The president actually talked about that in Minnesota in 2004. The original estimates of 15 to 20 percent landowners and in some areas numbers 

as high as 50 percent of not re-enrolling. 

My concern is, you know, what is USDA doing to address large 

numbers of acres that are potentially coming back into circulation? 

The impact it has on production, the impact it has on crop prices, 

and the impact that has on the hay reserve for ranchers, the impact on conservationists, wildlife and hunting have raised concerns. 

Can you talk to me a little bit about what we’re doing to minimize these potential impacts and how do you plan to aggressively 

address the next batch of CRP acres expiring? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We took the acres that were expiring from 2007 

through 2010 and broke them into two groups. There are 16 million 

acres expiring in 2007 and another 12 million expiring from 2008 

through 2010. 

We took the 2007 contracts first, and this January we mailed out 

notices to all contract holders about their options to re-enroll or extend their contract per the president’s commitment in your state 

back in August 2004. 

Of those, what we announced this week, we announced the results of our general sign-up, we also announced that of those 2007 

24

expiring contracts, 73 percent I believe it is, 73 or 74 percent—no, 

excuse me, 84 percent, 84 percent of them had taken us up on the 

option to extend or re-enroll. 

We have a 16 percent slippage or attrition rate, which is not as 

great as I might have thought it was. When we looked at historic 

offers of opportunities to extend contracts, we saw a range of anywhere from 15 to 25 percent slippage, so here we’ve got 16 at the 

low end of it. We are well-satisfied with that, and that does result 

in another, you know, million-plus acres coming back into production. 

Individual landowners and producers make their decisions based 

upon their own local economic conditions and what they think they 

can best utilize that land for. But it I was right in the ballpark of 

what we expected historically and we are satisfied and pleased that 

84 percent of them are extending their contracts. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. NRCS, demand for it is increasing and yet 

the funding for conservation operations budget is declining. What 

are you doing to control costs and otherwise address this reality of 

budget declines? 

Mr. KNIGHT. The budget declines over the last few years in technical assistance have been very great, of course increasing earmarks, but as significant was the $10 million reduction for Katrina, 

an across-the-board reduction as well. So we have taken many 

steps to try to contain costs. 

I have a freeze throughout the Agency on new vehicles. I have 

a freeze on major IT asset purchases as well, to be able to contain 

those costs. We have been able to avoid any major need to—we 

haven’t had to let go any permanent employees. A few states have 

had to make adjustments on temporary employees, or they have 

been shifted to other assignments. 

One of the key things on the Conservation Operations Account 

has been for the first time we have put national priorities in place 

to clearly manage this as a program, have priorities, what we are 

trying to achieve, a manual that strictly says what should and 

should not be done into to make sure we are managing the program as efficiently as we possibly can. 

Long-term, the next phase is to really look at what is the work 

that is being done there, are there ways to automate and increase 

efficiencies in there. We are looking for everything we can. It is a 

small example of efficiencies that come from there, but since CTA 

provides that basic underlining planning work, I will give you this 

example. 

We do a lot of engineering work. We have saved nearly $700,000 

by doing a nationwide buy of the AutoCAD software that our engineers do instead of buying that piece by piece. We are looking for 

every one of those kinds of savings we can do to constrain cost, so 

that we can put as many people on the ground as we possibly can. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Last month, the EPA released a 

‘‘Wadeable Streams Assessment,’’ and in that EPA found that 42 

percent of streams are in poor condition, 25 percent are in fair condition, and 28 percent are in good condition. Nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and sediment were the most common stressors. 

25

NRCS began the Conservation Effects Assessment Project in 

order to measure and understand how conservation programs possibly affect the natural environment. What do we know from that 

study, and will it help us make decisions for the next farm bill? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We have tried to streamline the SEEP process in 

order to have some preliminary results in time for this committee 

and others’ consideration for the next farm bill. Certainly the largest quandary that not just USDA Natural Resources’ agencies but 

everybody working on natural resources has is: how do you measure the impact of what we are doing? 

We have 70 years of experience in soil and water conservation, 

and probably a little less than a decade on air. We know we are 

doing good things, but it is very difficult to evaluate which is the 

most effective. Terraces versus no till? What does greater groundwater recharge in Georgia? Is it small dams and ponds, or is it 

water conservation on the irrigation systems? That is our desire to 

ultimately get to with SEEP is to be able to have a series of models 

that will help us make that evaluation at as local a level as possible for the effectiveness of that conservation investment. 

SEEP is certainly a long-term investment. We hope to have a few 

initial results, but I’m fearing they will be sketchy for the 2007 

Farm Bill. But it’s important to think of SEEP as a long-term investment for conservation effectiveness. The participation within 

USDA and with the other Federal agencies has been outstanding. 

ARS is a major player in SEEP as well as CSREES. EPA has an 

individual loan to us as a liaison to help us in the relations with 

that. We are working closely with the wildlife community to have 

as robust as possible program to be able to provide answers not 

just for this farm bill, but for Agency management into the future 

of the next farm bill. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. The ‘‘April 2006 GAO Report’’ on the Conservation Security Program cites weak internal controls and the 

lack of quality assurance in case file documentation as factors that 

have led to CSP payments duplicating other conservation program 

payments. It also found that wildlife habitat assessment criteria 

vary widely by state. How are we addressing these deficiencies? 

Mr. KNIGHT. That particular report was done from the snapshot 

of the 18 pioneer watersheds from 2004. Many of the suggestions 

that came from that report were, quite frankly, as a result of some 

of our internal efforts. 

We have an O&E process that we use internally to learn from 

those things. We had already made the changes on the internal 

controls to guarantee that we did not have duplication or multiple 

payments. 

We have done similar things on the wildlife arena, though costs 

constraints are always a challenge there. We have a statutory limitation in CSP that we cannot do more than 15 percent as technical 

assistance. That means that certain disciplines within the Agency 

that love to go to the field, my wildlife folks, the range scientists, 

have a certain frustration that they are not going to the field ahead 

of the completion of a CSP contract. We have instead automated 

that and use the indexes. I think we have responded fully and completely to all the things that were outlined in that report. 

26

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Johnson, we talked about the administrative cost per acre per contract on our programs, and you are 

going to submit that to us. Would you also give us the technical 

assistance cost per acre for CRP and CRP enhancement programs 

at the same time you provide the other information? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly will. I will be glad to do that. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. The USDA announced the results of the 

latest CRP sign-up and the results of the contract extension and 

re-enrollment offer on Monday of this week. What’s the total current enrollment for CRP? Please walk us through the allocation for 

each subset such as continuous sign-up, CREPs, et cetera. How 

many acres will be extended or re-enrolled? 

Mr. JOHNSON. On the re-enrollments and extension, as I mentioned earlier, there are 28 million acres expiring between 2007 

and 2010. We broke those into two pieces. What we announced yesterday or earlier this week was that of the 2007 contracts that 

were expiring, 84 percent of those folks have taken us up on the 

offer to re-enroll, that is 84 percent and that is 16 million acres. 

Contracts that are expiring from 2008 through 2010, those producers and landowners have been given until the end of this 

month, the end of June, to come into their county FSA Office and 

pay a compliance fee so that the paperwork can follow that will 

allow them to take us up on that offer as well. 

So it will probably be sometime in mid-July or late July before 

we have all that data in our computer system to say exactly how 

many, what percentage of that 12 million acres is taking us up on 

the opportunity to re-up. I don’t have any reason to think that that 

will be dramatically different than the people in 2007. If it stays 

true to that, we are looking at a 16 percent slippage rate overall. 

Now, as far as the number of acres assigned, we have a 39.2 million acre cap. We are currently at 36.7 after the sign-up, which 

about 400,000 acres of the million we just accepted were expiring 

contracts that were enrolled. We have some room to work. 

Of that I think we are anticipating, correct me if I’m wrong, 

about 400,000 acres a year for Continuous CRP and CREP. The 

president’s budget this year had a 2.5 million acre general sign-up. 

Obviously, we didn’t achieve that. 

We will be reassessing as far as what we plan for the next year, 

whether we need to develop some new tools to encourage a more 

robust sign-up in our continuous practices in our CREPs. 

I will say that the three CREP agreements I mentioned that 

were focused on water conservation in both Colorado and Nebraska 

and Idaho have been enthusiastically received. We have seen very 

strong interest there, and so those acres might chew up fairly 

quickly. 

Likewise, with the Presidential Quail Initiative, which the Chairman helped us kick off a year or two ago down in South Georgia, 

we have seen strong interest there with almost a hundred thousand acres enrolled; we had only budgeted 250,000 acres. That is 

going very quickly. 

We have seen, perhaps, a reduced interest in our general signup acres where we only have a million acres being enrolled in this 

general sign-up. We are seeing in other parts of our continuous and 

27

CREP programs a very healthy appetite for acres, and so we may 

have to adjust our planning in that regard. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Many CRP supporters have expressed 

concern that FSA is not doing enough to ensure wildlife and water 

quality measures are maintained throughout the life of CRP contracts, and that the benefits promised when contracts were signed 

are not being met. What oversight strategies or polices does FSA 

have in place to ensure the promises of CRP are achieved and 

maintained? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our general policy which applies to all CRP contracts in our county offices requires our county offices to do a compliance check on 10 percent of the contracts every year, so obviously it will take the full 10–year cycle of our contract before they 

get through all the contracts on compliance checks. 

But after the president made his announcement about committing to utilization of the full cap and announcing the initiatives for 

wetlands and quail habitat in Minnesota, that was referred to earlier, he directed us to go out with a ‘‘Federal Register Notice,’’ seeking comment on the program and how to address this whole issue 

of the expiring acres. In the 5,000–plus comments we got back, 

compliance was a significant concern, as you have identified here 

this morning. 

As a result, a policy decision was made that as we implement reenrollments and extensions on all 28 million acres, that is 28 of the 

36 that are in the program, the lion’s share of it, we were going 

to require a compliance check on every one of those contracts before 

we process the paperwork for either an extension or re-enrollment. 

On virtually every one of those 28 million acres, we will be doing 

a compliance check this year because we do think it is an issue 

that needs to be taken seriously. I don’t have a complete report of 

all the findings there. 

A lot of it was focused on noxious weed type things, but I will 

tell you that anecdotally I’ve heard reports that we found at least 

one trailer park and one water tower on the CRP acre. It is something that we are taking seriously. Every one, every acre, of these 

28 million acres this year will have a compliance check conducted 

on it. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. I haven’t seen many quail flying around 

trailer parks lately. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Those compliance reviews that you’re 

doing, is that done with local FSA Office folks, or do you do 

that——

Mr. JOHNSON. No, it’s done locally by the county office. We did 

institute a fee for the compliance check this year of $45 per contract plus a dollar per acre. We utilized that money to hire temporary employees in the county offices to assist with this workload, 

because it was a very significant workload for us to try to cover all 

28 million acres in a single year. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, that answers my question about 

overtaxing the local folks, because as we all know the are very 

stressed out right now, from an employment standpoint. 

28

Last, Mr. Johnson, conservation and wildlife groups have asked 

FSA to establish a longleaf pine national priority area and to devote 700,000 acres to it. What’s the status of that request? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is under consideration. As I mentioned earlier, when I was talking about kind of the changes in appetite for 

CRP, we have seen some strong interests for some of our specialized, continuous practices. 

As we look at meeting the president’s stated goal of utilizing the 

full 39.2, we are looking at other types of practices that would target conservation and would be well received, and there would be 

a healthy appetite for. That was one of the ones that is under consideration right now. I don’t have a date certain when we will have 

the decision made, but we are aggressively examining that alternative. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Harkin. 

Mr. HARKIN. I had a question, but actually Senator Salazar 

asked it earlier and fleshed it out, so I don’t have anything. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. OK. 

Mr. Coleman, do you have anything else? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Nothing. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. OK. Gentlemen, thank you very much. We 

appreciate your being here this morning and providing very valuable testimony. We thank you. 

We will ask for our second panel to come forward. 

[Pause in proceedings.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Gentlemen, thank you. We have Dr. 

James Earl Kennamer, senior vice president for Conservation Programs from the National Wild Turkey Federation from Edgefield, 

South Carolina, a great part of the world; Mr. Olin Sims, president 

elect of the National Association of Conservation Districts, McFadden Wyoming; Mr. James O. Andrew of Andrew Farms, Jefferson, 

Iowa, on behalf of the Iowa Soybean Association; Mr. Randall 

Spronk, chair of the National Pork Producers Council Environmental Policy Committee from Edgerton, Minnesota. 

Gentlemen, we welcome all four of you here. We look forward to 

your testimony. I will ask you again if you could keep your opening 

statements to 5 minutes, and we will submit your full statement 

for the record, if you need any additional time for that. Mr. 

Kennamer, we will start with you. Thank you for being here. How 

are things in Edgefield these days between Quail Unlimited and 

the Wild Turkey Federation? It doesn’t get any better than that. 

Mr. KENNAMER. Well, I agree with you, Senator. We just need 

some rain right now. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. In South Georgia, it’s the same way. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES EARL KENNAMER, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, NATIONAL 

WILD TURKEY FEDERATION, EDGEFIELD, SOUTH CAROLINA 

Dr. KENNAMER. Thank you. The NWTF is dedicated to the conservation of the wild turkey and to preservation of the turkey hunting tradition. Since NWTF’s founding in 1973, North America’s 

wild turkey population has grown from 1.3 million to nearly 7 million birds. This is a result of cooperative efforts of state, Federal 

29

and prevential wildlife agencies, the NWTF, and its 500,000 members and partners. 

The NWTF conservation partners and grassroots members have raised and spent more than $224 million on conservation priorities 

to help conserve and improve more than 9.6 million acres of wildlife habitat and to uphold our hunting heritage. 

I am pleased to tell you that our Federal agricultural conservation programs work well. Together we are putting conservation 

practices on the ground, helping landowners and producers, our 

communities, our land and our wildlife. 

One area where existing conservation programs can be improved 

is more emphasis on active forest management. Our nation’s forest 

supplies supply over 50 percent of the freshwater flow in the Lower 

48 States where an estimated 180 million people depend on the forest for their drinking water. They are critical to our economy, to 

our environment, our citizens and our wildlife. 

Another forestry program, the Forest Stewardship Program, is 

one of the best programs to provide technical assistance to private 

forest landowners. Through the program natural resource professionals have written over 260,000 forest management plans, improving almost 30 million acres. 

However, the program does not provide any cost-share assistance 

to landowners. It is imperative that we provide more opportunities 

for cost-share funding for forest landowners in this program. 

Perhaps our greatest disappointment with regard to forestry conservation lies with the Forest Land Enhancement Program. FLEP 

is a well-designed, well-intentioned program, but its $100 million 

in mandatory funding has been diverted to other uses. To improve 

forest management, FLEP funding must be used for its intended 

purpose. 

The Environmental Qualities Incentive Program, ‘‘EQIP,’’ is another program that can be strengthened to help address forest 

management needs. However, only 1 percent of EQIP funds are 

spent on forest management, and only about 5 percent of the funds 

are for general wildlife management. 

Overall, this $1.1 billion program in 2006 spends less than $10 

million annually in forest cost-share assistance to landowners. The 

NWTF recommends strengthening EQIP’s implementation regulations and the underlying to ensure the targeting of more EQIP 

funds to wildlife activities that improve biodiversity in forest 

health. Increased EQIP funding will also further enhance opportunities to improve wildlife habitat including forests. 

Finally, EQIP and other conservation programs should require 

more contribution agreements to allow nongovernmental organizations to assist private landowners, thereby avoiding the cumbersome technical service provider process. 

The Conservation Reserve Program has an excellent long-term 

track record for providing landscape conservation of soil, water, 

and wildlife. We support continued refinement of the Environmental Benefits Index, ‘‘EBI,’’ to further produce high-quality wildlife habitats. 

We also suggest encouraging practices like more hardwoods and 

longleaf pine plantings on CRP, more native warm season grass 

plantings, improved mid-contract management on wild loblolly pine 

30

CRP contracts, and more full-time employees at FSA to improve 

CRP compliance. 

We also support an increased emphasis on the Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program to manage native plant communities and increase biodiversity. However, WHIP has seen dramatic cuts for 

mandatory spending levels. 

We recommend full funding for WHIP and support broadening 

the number of targeted species and place more emphasis on longterm benefits or practices such as prescribed burning or targeted 

hardwood planting. 

Hunting is an honored, American tradition. Opportunities for 

public access to hunt on private lands provide economic benefits to 

local communities, the hunting industry, and broaden support for 

farm and conservation programs. Mr. Chairman, did you know that 18 million hunters spend $30 

billion annually. We support incentives to open private lands to 

hunters by offering additional points through the Environmental 

Benefits Index or adding other cost-share assistance to support access. 

In summary, the NWTF believes that our agricultural conservation programs have made a significant positive impact. With some 

modern administrative and statutory adjustments and consistent 

funding, these programs can provide even greater benefits to our 

wildlife, our citizens, and our economy in the future. 

One thing I would close in saying, Senator, is that I hope with 

all of the gains that we have been able to make with all of these 

conservation programs, going all the way back through the years 

and hearing the testimony this morning about energy, that we 

don’t sacrifice those long-term gains that we have made to go for 

energy. We support energy and the ways to do that, but I think we 

can’t rob that to make it happen. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennamer can be found on page 

97 in the appendix.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. You make a very good point. 

We have got to be careful how we balance the interest of energy 

versus wildlife and versus our food production also. It is something 

that this Committee is going to look very strongly at. 

We are excited about the opportunity for our farmers and our 

ranchers to participate in the alternative energy production, but at 

the same time we do understand that the farm bill next year is 

going to be an issue of national security in addition to farm security. 

I can’t let you be here to testify without complimenting the great 

work that the Wild Turkey Federation has done along with Departments of Natural Resources in virtually every state in the country 

to increase the turkey population around the United States. What 

a terrific job you have done there and what great results have been 

achieved by that. 

We know a lot of that is because of the conservation programs 

that farmers have taken advantage of or landowners have taken 

advantage of that are provided for in the farm bill. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Sims. 

31

STATEMENT OF OLIN SIMS, PRESIDENT ELECT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, McFADDEN, WYOMING 

Mr. SIMS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. My name is Olin Sims, president elect of the National 

Association of Conservation Districts, as we refer to as ‘‘NACD.’’ I 

am a rancher from McFadden Wyoming. My family runs a 700 cow/

calf operation on 22,000 cares of deeded, private, state and Federal 

leases in Southern Wyoming. I have served on my local Conservation District for nearly 20 years now. 

Across the United States nearly three thousand Conservation 

Districts—almost one in every county—are helping local people to 

conserve land, water, forest, wildlife, and related natural resources. 

We share a single mission to coordinate assistance from all available sources—public and private, local, state and Federal—in an effort to develop locally driven solutions to natural resource concerns. 

NACD believes that every acre counts regardless of its use in the 

adoption of conservation practices. We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony today. NACD and the Wild Turkey 

Federation have entered into an agreement to promote wild turkey 

habitat at the local level. The other witnesses on the panel are 

friends from the Pork Producers and the Soybean Growers represent the major customers that Conservation Districts in America 

serve. 

The 2002 Farm Bill impacted producers across the country; but 

in my area, in Wyoming, they conservation programs are the farm 

bill to us. I am happy to have had the opportunity to participate 

in some of those programs. 

My family implements environmental stewardship practices such 

as intensive rotational grazing, integrated wheat control, introduction of new grasses, and windrowed hay management for energy 

savings. 

The 2002 Farm Bill provided an increased emphasis on working 

lands, provided a balance between programs that retire land from 

production and those that a producer is still producing a crop. 

Conservation Districts hope this trend continues in the future. 

Let me stress that NACD defines working lands as those lands in 

economic production of food, feed, and fiber and believe that producers must have an economically viable farming and ranching operation to make an investment in conservation practices in the future. 

NACD was pleased with the overall funding commitment provided in conservation program options in the 2002 Farm Bill but 

is concerned with the alterations to the funding of the program 

since the passage of that bill. 

Overall, as we look at the 1902 conservation programs, the implementation results vary from state to state. Not all programs impact each region of the country the same way. Some are just not 

options for producers, so we must continue to focus on a menu of 

options for conservation assistance in the future. USDA conservation utilizes the local workgroups to assist in targeting funds and 

programs to address local resource needs and priorities. 

Local workgroups convened by Conservation Districts and comprised of Federal, state, county, tribal, and local government repVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30425.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
32

resentatives coordinate local program delivery. Local workgroups 

are an important element of program delivery to allow for local priorities and resource needs to be addressed. 

Increased adoption of conservation practices through the programs provide a benefit to landowners and the general public, resulting in improved nutrient management with decreased nutrient 

sediment runoff as well as increased wildlife habitat. Programs 

have protected farm- and ranchlands from development and protected wetland areas through easement programs. 

Conservation financial assistance provided through the farm bill 

is an important component in achieving agricultural sustainability, 

both economically and environmentally. But, Mr. Chairman, let me 

assure you that every time you hear NACD members talk about 

the farm bill, we will talk about conservation, technical assistance, 

what we refer to as ‘‘TA.’’

TA is utilized to work with landowners on conservation plans 

from design, layout and implementation, helping landowners to understand highly erodible lands and the necessary compliance for 

farm bill commodity programs. 

Technical assistance has been a key component in working with 

livestock producers to understand the EPA AFO/CAFO regulations. 

District staff and NRCS staff have held workshops across the country to educate producers on needs to make sure that their operations don’t fall under enforcement actions of the Clean Water Act. 

The bottom line is that producers need quality technical assistance to maximize the effectiveness of financial assistance they receive. Even without financial help, many producers still rely on 

that technical assistance to help them with their operations. 

Mr. Chairman, technical assistance should never be considered 

an administrative cost. The EQIP Program has been widely successful across the country. Even with a substantial increase in 

funding provided in the 1902 Farm Bill, the demand still exceeds 

the available dollars. 

The input from the local level is key in making the program successful. Many states do have a backlog of EQIP projects that have 

been approved but not implemented yet, and we feel it is crucial 

to have the personnel on the ground to help assist those producers 

in those contracts. 

NACD was a strong advocate for the incentive-based conservation program, the CSP program; but in the development of the program and the creation of the regulations and actual implementation, the program changed significantly from our original concept. 

We hoped for a program that was easy for producers to access, but 

yet it has been extremely hard for them to do so, a complex program it turned out to be. 

The 2002 Farm Bill was a hallmark for conservation in this 

country. It offers a sound mix of programs and resources to build 

upon for the future. It was a tremendous leap forward, and there 

are still many who remain untouched by its potential. From our 

perspective, we believe that every acre counts, and I believe the 

Farm Bill is the best mechanism to deliver. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you very 

much for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

33

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sims can be found on page 120 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Andrew. 

Let me just turn to Senator Harkin before you speak, Mr. Andrew. 

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to welcome Jim Andrew to the Committee. I was 

looking here, I was just showing this to the Chairman. This is an 

‘‘Iowa Natural Issue,’’ our spring issue, and it’s a picture of Bruce 

Knight, NRCD chief, who flew in from Washington, D.C., to sign 

Iowa’s first Tier III CSP contract with Jim Andrew, a fifth generation farmer in Greene County. Congratulations on that Jim. Thank 

you. 

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if you wondered or if anyone ever wondered how you can really do conservation and still be 

a successful farmer, all you have to do is go look at Jim Andrew’s 

farm and find out how he farms. He has done it well, and he has 

done it for many years. He is not a Johnny-come-lately to this. He 

has been doing this long before I ever got involved in this. 

Many of the things that he is doing are things that we have sort 

of looked at. He is just a very progressive farmer. I know a lot of 

questions were raised, and we’re going to get to that later, about 

how you can combine wildlife habitat and CRP ground, but still use 

production working lands. 

Believe me, it can be done, and there is a farmer right there that 

has done it and shows how to do it. I welcome him to the Committee. I may not be able to stay for all the questions. I just want 

to take this opportunity to welcome you here, Jim. 

Mr. ANDREW. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. That is a pretty high compliment coming 

from Senator Harkin there, Mr. Andrew, so we’ve got high expectations for your testimony and your answers. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF JAMES O. ANDREW, ANDREW FARMS, ON BEHALF OF THE IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, JEFFERSON, 

IOWA 

Mr. ANDREW. I’ve crossed the country flashing Senator Harkin’s 

picture on the screen and calling him the father of CSP, so I am 

the prodigy of the Father of CSP’s efforts. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jim 

Andrew and I am here representing the Iowa Soybean Association 

as a farmer director and a fifth generation corn and soybean farmer from West Central Iowa. 

As a lifelong steward of the land, I would like to thank you and 

the Committee for the vision and leadership you displayed in 

crafting and passing the sweeping conservation provisions of the 

2002 Farm Bill. 

It was and still is an unprecedented commitment of the U.S. 

Government to help the nation’s farmers meet not only their personal conservation goals, but also to make progress on addressing 

agriculture’s contribution to improving overall environmental quality. 

34

However, as time passes and other priorities present themselves, 

I and many of my fellow farmers fear that the solid commitment 

to the conservation title is weakening. We believe there is good reason to review and reinstate the Committee’s original scope and intent. 

In Iowa, the Conservation Security Program, or ‘‘CSP’’ contracts, 

still represented a small percentage of the over 60,000 Iowa farmers on working lands. Funding levels and rules for program participation, particularly with the CSP leave farmers with no guarantee 

they will be able to participate in the future. Overall, $3 billion has been removed from the original CSP ap- propriation since 2002. If allowed to stand, the $280 million cap 

proposed in the current House Agricultural Appropriation Bill 

would result in few, if any, new watersheds becoming eligible for 

CSP in 2007. We recommend full funding of the conservation title 

of the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Andrew Farms enrolled in CSP in 2005. Because of our over 30 

years using progressive conservation practices, we found the CSP 

enrollment and evaluation a smooth, orderly, fair, and rewarding 

experience. 

As one of the first Tier III recipients in the nation, I have spoken 

before more than 3,000 farmers and conservations from all over the 

United States. In the process of explaining the CSP program to 

those still waiting for their watersheds to be selected, I have heard 

several recurring messages. 

Many farmers are becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the 

slow pace of program implementation. The ever-changing rules and 

budgetary constraints differ greatly from the way the program was 

originally explained to the farmer and are causing some to give up 

before they even enroll. 

The selected watershed concept has led to rules and regulations 

which vary greatly from watershed to watershed and state to state. 

This is particularly hard to justify and for farmers to understand 

who are used to rules that are fairly and consistently applied nationwide. 

Some farmers are making expensive capital investments in conservation systems in anticipation of their watershed being selected 

which may be five, eight, how many years away. Some are going 

as far as hiring paid consultants to put their records and farm operations in the best condition to maximize their tier and financial 

reward. 

The program originally allowed a fully transferable gentleman’s 

agreement between tenant and landlord for the 10–year commitment. Rumors and sources now tell me that those not able to honor 

the original terms because of a change of ownership or tenancy will 

have their contracts canceled and may be fined a portion of the proceeds already issued. This is causing a great deal of concern and 

anguish among farmers and landlords and will greatly limit the potential participation until it is resolved. 

The CSP program needs to be simple enough at Tier I to allow 

the maximum of initial participation while not watering down the 

requirements to where they are meaningless. At the same time, 

farmers won’t enroll if funding does not exist to support the additional enhancements they need to make the rise to the next tier. 

35

Finally, when I realized that we had been awarded Tier III and 

would be recognized with a national signing ceremony at one of our 

three ponds, attended by Bruce Knight, chief of NRCS, I had some 

real apprehensions as to the reaction of my fellow farmers and 

local taxpayers. 

Of all the civic-minded things that my father and I have done 

during the course of our lifetimes, nothing has been as well received and accepted as the Conservation Security Program. 

We continue to be dumbfounded with the sincere congratulations 

and compliments from farmers and urban residents alike. This reinforces to us that conservation supersedes partisan politics and is 

of primary importance to all citizens. 

Based on our experience, we feel you have a mandate to 

strengthen and continue the rapid implementation of the Conservation Security Program nationwide. We know the program works 

well on a small scale. Provide the needed funding and support and 

farmers will work with you cooperatively to get the job done. 

I appreciate this opportunity to present our views and recommendations to you and will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrew can be found on page 

117 in the appendix.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Andrew. 

Mr. Spronk. 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL SPRONK, SPRONK BROTHERS III, 

CHAIR, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COMMITTEE, EDGERTON, MINNESOTA 

Mr. SPRONK. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss, Ranking 

Member Harkin, and members of the committee. My name is 

Randy Spronk. I am a pork producer from Edgerton, Minnesota. 

My family and I operate a farrow to finish hog operation. We also 

raise corn and soybeans. I am here this morning proudly representing the National Pork Producers Council and the thousands 

of U.S. hog producers throughout the country. 

I am chair of NPPC’s Environmental Policy Committee. We are 

very grateful to you for holding this hearing and we appreciate you 

accepting our written remarks for the record. What follows is my 

summary of that written statement. 

Pork Producers are proud of our commitment and our support for 

Congress’ effort to dramatically increase funding for the conservation programs during the 2002 Farm Bill, particularly the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, ‘‘EQIP.’’

We believe that the clear direction given in the 2002 Farm Bill 

was that EQIP program would help farmers deal with their top environmental challenges. Pork producers look forward to participating in the EQIP program to help us to continue to improve our 

environmental performance and to meet or exceed our regulatory 

requirements, state or Federal. 

While our support for this program continues today, I must tell 

you that overall pork producers have been sorely disappointed in 

the EQIP program. This disappointment has not been universal. 

However, we think that the EQIP program is missing a tremendous opportunity to have a dramatic effect on the environment by 

36

failing work with many of our producers. The bulk of my comments 

this morning focus on the EQIP program under the 2002 Farm Bill. 

The EQIP program, despite numerous helpful amendments made 

in the 2002 Farm Bill, has made only minimal contributions to 

pork producers’ environmental performance. In short, pork producers have received little EQIP funding. 

We first detected this trend in the data from the 2003 program 

year. We reviewed and discussed these findings with NRCS leadership and some important steps were taken to address these issues, 

but the bottom result unfortunately did not change. 

Using NRCS data and our own estimates in the 2003, 1904, and 

1905 program years, pork producers received only about 3 percent 

of EQIP cost-share assistance provided to all livestock producers, 

43 million out of a total of 1.26 billion. 

As reported in 2004, this is less than the share provided to goat, 

emu, ostrich, elk, and bison producers. This is a seriously disappointing result given all of our producers’ hard work in the 2002 

Farm Bill and with NRCS leadership in several states. 

These numbers and percentages improve a little when you focus 

on some of the major swine-producing states, but not enough. For 

example, in the 2004 program year, in eight states that account for 

80 percent of U.S. pork production, pork producers received approximately 5 percent of all EQIP cost-year assistance funds, and 

just 9 percent of the funds that went to livestock that year. 

An improvement, yes, relative to the national figure of 3 percent, 

but this still strikes us as a significant underinvestment in the environmental practices of pork producers. 

Indiana is probably the brightest spot we have seen so far. In 

2004, a pork share was 22 percent, and in 2005 it appears to have 

been a very strong 37 percent. We looked closely at Indiana to see 

how this kind of performance can be achieved in other states. 

NPPC has now undertaken in states with significant levels of 

hog production a detailed review of the EQIP program performance 

for pork producers. We will provide you with those results when 

that work is completed, but I can make some preliminary observations. 

First, EQIP applications from pork producers appear not to be 

ranking well because producers have already invested in the core 

elements of sound manure management systems. We have engineered manure storage facilities in addition to manure management plants. 

Second, EQIP cost-share assistance is not generally available for 

mobile equipment, yet one of pork producers greatest needs is for 

new, expanded, and more precise mobile manure utilization equipment. 

Third, there is a lack of effect in economical air emission mitigation technologies and practices that EQIP program can support. 

Fourth, EQIP funds allocated to counties for final application approvals often prove inadequate to cover more than one or two modest-sized EQIP contracts. 

No. 5, NRCS major commitment to molding the use of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans, or ‘‘CNMPs,’’ is not yet 

adequately reflected in the program in many states. 

37

No. 6, insufficient EQIP funds have been made available to support farmers’ use of technical service providers, ‘‘TSPs,’’ to require 

CNMPs. 

No. 7, there can be a long lag time between when decisions are 

made and policies change in a state NRCS office and when new 

policies are adopted in the field. 

Last, NRCS field and area personnel often have insufficient understanding of todays’ pork production to work effectively with pork 

producers or they simply lack the time to do so. 

These observations are preliminary and far from conclusive, but 

they are based on pork producers’ experiences. We will share with 

the Committee more detailed review of these issues to develop 

more concrete recommendations for program changes. 

The National Pork Producers Council and its pork producer 

members want EQIP to succeed. It holds considerable promise, particularly as we move into a period where livestock producers may 

need help addressing air emissions that are regulated under the 

Clean Air Act, but I must be frank with you. 

The many issues we have raised with you today weigh heavily 

on us and have discouraged our producer members from participating in the program. There is a general perception among producers that EQIP simply will not work for pork producers. We look 

forward to working with you during the upcoming 2007 Farm Bill 

discussions to make EQIP better address pork producers’ concerns. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spronk can be found on page 120 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. To each of you, thank you. 

Senator Harkin, I know you have to leave us here shortly. I’m 

happy to turn to you for any comments or questions initially. 

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I really appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you very much. 

Just as kind of a general question from the previous panel that 

was here and some of the questions that were asked, there has 

been a lot of discussion about whether USDA has a larger number 

of separate conservation programs that may be necessary or practice to administer. We have heard that brought up. 

Do you think it would be helpful to reassess the structure of 

these separate programs, that we have gotten to the point where 

the focus is too much on which program is applicable and less on 

directly solving the challenges of what needs to be done on the 

land? 

Just go down the line, how do you feel about this? Are there too 

many of these separate programs? Should they be put an umbrella 

type of thing or not? just a general sense of how you feel about it. 

Mr. KENNAMER. Well, Senator, I think in some of the cases, it 

was addressed in the earlier panel, the different programs that we 

have designed now to fit specific needs and what they do. I know 

there have been a lot of problems with coordination and interpretation. I think the important thing is maintaining what we have 

here, to better define what the rules would be, and then to make 

sure that we have adequate funding. 

So, I guess in summary for me I don’t see us combining a lot of 

those things. I think we just need to implement it and better do 

38

what we have been doing all along, and I think we will get more 

money and more bang to the ground. 

Mr. HARKIN. Fair enough. 

Mr. Sims? 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman and Senator Harkin, I certainly agree. 

We are very supportive of the conservation programs in the 1902 

Farm Bill, but our membership has voiced some concern about, you 

know, the number of programs. Some of the producers down at the 

local level sometimes don’t understand which program would work 

for them best, and they need some assistance with that. 

We do believe and we have had some discussion that it could be 

grouped up, the programs could be grouped up, into three or four 

different categories: working lands programs, your incentive-based 

programs, your retirement programs, and then you have easement 

programs that fit in there as well. 

I do think we have got a good conservation title right now, but 

we certainly could tweak it a little bit to make it just a little more 

user-friendly for our producers out on the ground. 

Mr. HARKIN. Very good. 

Mr. ANDREW. Senator Harkin, I think probably the number of 

programs make it easier to identify the one that applies to you. 

However, I think there is also consideration that we don’t do a very 

good job of, No. 1, making them identifiable to the farmer producer; 

there is a lot of confusion. 

Second, in a lot of situations, the ways the rules and regulations 

are administered from county to county and state to state, I heard 

more complaints in St. Louis at the National No-Till Conference. 

Thankfully, they weren’t coming from Iowans, but in other states 

where one fellow said, ‘‘I couldn’t get the answer I wanted on CSP, 

so I went over to this guy I heard in another county that was the 

Conservation District commissioner and asked him and he gave me 

what I wanted, and then I went back and told the other guy you’re 

supposed to do it this way.’’

There is a lot of confusion and that just creates a real problem 

to a producer who is trying to make the best use of his time, and 

I don’t have time to hire somebody to go and chase all the details 

down for the program. 

Mr. HARKIN. Very good. 

Mr. Spronk? 

Mr. SPRONK. I would echo previous comments here that it can be 

very confusing for producers out on the ground, you know, to identify the particular program that is necessary for them. I also, on 

the other hand, do believe that once you have a program set up 

such as the EQIP to improve it rather than changing it dramatically, because they have prior understanding. I try to work with 

what’s there and improve it before we move on. 

Mr. HARKIN. One last thing. I thank you all for your testimony, 

for being here this morning. One last thing, Mr. Andrew, on this 

problem that we are having with this transferability, this has come 

up a lot of times in terms of a tenant who is on and he gets a contract and he may lose his tenancy. I remember this very well. 

There was talk at the time, ‘‘What happens?’’

‘‘Well, in that case, he ought to be able to put that on something 

else or move it to something else, maybe land that he owns or 

39

something. Maybe he has it on some tenancy land, but he could put 

it on land he owns or something like that.’’

From what you are telling me is that that’s not happening. 

Mr. ANDREW. As I understand it, Senator, the source that approached me indicated that this is resolved because of an I believe 

USDA Inspector General audit has determined that they have got 

to clean up the system and come up with something. 

Well, in doing so we go from a very gentleman’s agreement of if 

I do not get my lease renewed 2 years from now, I know that the 

person that does as long as he maintains the same farming procedures for that landowner will be able to keep the contract. It is 

being indicated that is not the case, and now it’s going to be canceled and, as I indicated, in some cases even a fine issued, so it is 

an issue that needs to be looked into. 

Mr. HARKIN. I think, Mr. Chairman, this is something that we 

really have to look into because this was brought up in the discussion on the farm bill about what happens in situations like that, 

and I thought it had been settled, but obviously it hasn’t. I think 

we really need to take a look at that and why it’s happening that 

way. I would be open for any suggestions you have. You have been 

all over the country and stuff, so how we fix it, let me know. 

Mr. ANDREW. Senator, as you well know, we are facing an aging 

farm population that are in the landowner positions, and this is 

going to be a recurring problem. I would hope that we could come 

up with a fix that could be agreeable to all parties. I think most 

farmers are honorable people. 

They are not intending to scam the government for up to 

$45,000. It will be a lot bigger figure than that. As such I think 

this could be worked out amongst honorable men and not take the 

approach that you are going to Leavenworth if you can’t get your 

contract renewed. 

Mr. HARKIN. Well, we’ve got to figure it out. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Andrew. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to go first. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on a personal 

note, it is great to have Mr. Spronk here, a familiar face from 

Southwest Minnesota. I would note for the members of the committee, read his entire testimony. 

Mr. Spronk, you’ve chosen to focus in the short time you had on 

EQIP, but there is I think an important kind of statement being 

made in the early part of your written testimony talking about the 

commitment of our pork producers to the environment, to water 

quality. 

You also then briefly touch upon, although I’m not going to discuss it here today, but the issue of energy and the possibility of hog 

manure replacing commercial fertilizer at some point in time. I do 

hope my colleagues take the time to read the full extent of your 

testimony. I think it’s important. 

Let me just direct first a question to you and then to the panel. 

You’ve laid out seven or eight specific concerns about EQIP. If we 

were to focus even more, I mean, what do Minnesota pork producers need most from EQIP right at this time? What is it, if you 

40

say ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B,’’ what do you need most right now, that you would 

want folks to focus on? 

Mr. SPRONK. You know, as we look at funding, funding the EQIP 

program, it needs to be utilized so that we can comply with Federal 

regulations, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. As I look 

at the Clean Water Act, the best thing you can do for us as producers is to allow us to utilize more acres to apply the manure on. 

To me that is the best and highest use of manure. 

Because when I use that sustainable resource as my fertilizer 

source for my next corn crop, it is replacing a natural gas option, 

you know, that probably is going to be imported from some other 

country, and so it is a very sustainable, long-term highest best use 

for the nutrients that’s utilized. Anything that you can do to make 

that manure more mobile to spread it out over more acres is the 

highest and best use in my mind. 

Second, as we look to the Clean Air Act, Pork Producers are 

spending $7 million of their own funds, checkoff funds, on a study, 

a national air emissions study. We don’t know. You know, we want 

to be able to have technologies in a toolbox available, as Chief 

Knight said earlier, on air emissions, you know, whether or not we 

need to mitigate. We want to have that ready for them when they 

come to be able to utilize these programs to help producers to meet 

those clean air requirements. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I noticed Mr. Andrew and Mr. Sim kind of nodding their heads when you talked about manure more mobile. 

Would you want to either respond or do you agree with Mr. 

Spronk? Do you have any of the concerns he raised? 

Mr. ANDREW. Senator Coleman, to your first question on EQIP, 

I would say that I know in Iowa right now there are 1,500 contracts in EQIP last year and there are 1,500 awaiting funding. As 

usual, it’s always a money question. 

Second, we have some real concerns in the manure management 

area as far as the science-based application of manure. Pork production in the state of Iowa is as vital to our state as it is to Minnesota, and yet we have differing people saying different things. 

We very much put our money behind science-based research, which 

the Iowa Soybean Association has been trying to do. Yet, we find 

we are running against some real impacts in state DNR changing 

the rules. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Sims? 

Mr. SIMS. Senator, I certainly agree and there has been a lot of 

conversation this morning about energy and whether we need an 

energy title within the conservation—the farm bill. Excuse me. 

I think energy needs to be incorporated into the conservation 

title of the farm bill, just as the gentleman spoke of using manure 

for fertilizer to keep from having to purchase commercial fertilizers. I think that’s a wonderful thing. 

I do see in the EQIP program and with a lot of the programs is 

the shortage of technical assistance to have the right people out 

there to work with the producers to understand the benefits and 

how to go about using manure for fertilizer application to reduce 

their commercial fertilizer costs, and so I think education is quite 

important and those all can be components of technical assistance 

in the EQIP program. 

41

Mr. COLEMAN. I don’t know, Mr. Kennamer, if you want to add 

to it, but I do have to say we have got some pretty, you know, 

strong wild turkey habitat in South Minnesota. 

Mr. KENNAMER. A lot of turkeys. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COLEMAN. We greatly appreciate the work that you do and 

your organization does. It’s very, very important to Minnesota. 

If I can add a macro question here, the Chairman and I we are 

involved in trade issues and are concerned about WTO. One of the 

issues that is coming up now is, you know, what we can do with 

what we call Green Box programs with the WTO, and here is my 

concern. 

I’m just looking for a little help on this. I haven’t fleshed this out 

totally. They are concerned that, you know, for WTO purposes, concerned about not paying producers, what is it, an amount more 

than what they would be paid to implement conservation practices; 

those have been raised. 

The question is, on the one hand, there are some who are saying 

that we should be looking at our conservation programs as ways of 

dealing with some of the opportunities that we provide to farmers, 

kind of combining commodity and conservation. On the other hand, 

the concern is if, in fact, we run into WTO problems as a result 

of doing that, is that going to kind of undermine our conservation 

efforts? 

I guess the question is: Is there much point in blending conservation and commodity programs if in the end we make those conservation programs trade distorting under WTO? Does anybody 

want to help me with that? We are trying to sort our where we are 

going. I think this issue is going to be in front of us as we look at 

the next farm bill. Does anybody want to——

Mr. ANDREW. Senator Coleman, I think you are probably on the 

right track here; although, I am not so concerned. All of the explanations I have received over the years on WTO and the DOHA 

round would indicate that we would be very much in Green Box 

with the conservation payments. 

It’s whether we can get them up to the level to displace the 

present LDP’s countercyclical payments and everything that’s presently under the Farm Service Agency. But I guess I’ve also seen 

a great deal of concern that as we hear the DOHA round is dragging along, it’s not going to happen, that we don’t need to address 

these issues and transfer any of this into conservation green payments because we are probably not going to see DOHA come about. 

Well, we still have the case of the trade disputes facing us such 

as the Brazil cotton, and there are other issues with other commodities that are just waiting to be filed in courtrooms, if we do not 

solve the DOHA round. I think we have some concerns that we 

have got to orient toward the green conservation area. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Does anybody else want to provide any insight on 

that? 

Mr. Sims. 

Mr. SIMS. Senator, I’m probably the least qualified to speak to 

the World Trade Organization negotiations that are going on, but 

it seems like what’s good for the WTO it would limit production in 

42

the United States, and I struggle with that severely. I do believe 

that it’s wise that we keep our working lens in production. 

I think we stay focused on that as we move forward to draft the 

2007 Farm Bill and not get too hung up on where the WTO is at, 

at this point because it appears that they are struggling severely 

to come to agreement. I think we need to stay focused on what is 

good for America. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I appreciate that. I would appreciate you gentlemen continuing to be part of the discussion as we look at the next 

farm bill and as we look at how we continue to benefit from our 

conservation program. Thank you and thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator, as always. 

I will say gentlemen we are hopeful, as Senator Harkin said earlier, that we are going to have some resolution within the WTO, 

but we can’t unilaterally disarm and we’re not going to let the 

WTO write our farm bill. We’ve got to strengthen every single title 

in that farm bill as well as expand our energy title, and that is certainly our goal and what we hope to do. I am a lot more concerned 

the farmers in Paris, Texas, than I am farmers in Paris, France, 

I assure you. 

Mr. KENNAMER. Very good. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Gentlemen, looking back at the 2002 

Farm Bill, do any of you have a red flag out there relative to any 

conservation program that you have participated in, or that you 

have seen or know about that is not working? Is there anything 

that we did in 2002 that we ought to think about basically totally 

restructuring or eliminating from a conservation standpoint? Does 

anybody have a response to that? 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Yes, sir? 

Mr. SIMS. I do have a couple of thoughts or at least a program 

I felt was overlooked specifically in the funding area, and that was 

the Watershed Rehab Program in the farm bill. There are a tremendous number of facilities that were built over the last several 

years to help with flood mitigation that are in disrepair, and there 

has not been funding made available for those rehab projects, and 

think that’s something that we seriously need to look at. 

Mr. KENNAMER. Senator, I would like to make a comment as it 

relates to that, too. I don’t think in looking at the plan and the way 

it was put together it’s necessarily red flags. I don’t think we took 

advantage of a lot of opportunities, and maybe doing TSP and some 

of the others has gotten so cumbersome that we need to refine 

some of that so that NGO’s, like my organization, can come in and 

help implement some of the things that have been part of the plan. 

I think fine tuning some of this and bringing more involvements, 

you will bring more dollars to the table. I mentioned the $224 million that we have done with private and state and Federal funds 

with all of our partners, if one dollar came from our organization, 

it could match with the other dollars of that included within the 

$224 million. 

We deal with landowners and farmers. I grew up with a farm 

background. I’ve been working with farmers for 35 years impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30425.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
43

menting wildlife, and I don’t think we’ve taken advantage of that 

outside source. It could fit into what we’ve got now. From a red flag 

standpoint, we can do a better job tweaking what we’ve got. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator, you raised a good point. We’ve 

got a lot of matching grant type programs. I’m not sure if what 

you’re saying is that there have been programs that you have 

taken advantage of that have been matching per regulation or 

whether it is just money that you put in to supplement programs, 

but I assume it’s the later; is that correct? 

Mr. KENNAMER. We have done all of the above. A lot of what we 

try to do is to tell the landowners these different parts of the conservation programs of the 2002 Farm Bill how they can better utilize those, because we are already working with them on a lot of 

management not only for turkeys but for other wildlife as well. 

What you just mentioned, we have funding sources from a lot of 

different sides of things and we are working with landowners to 

implement that. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Andrew, one problem that we have 

encountered with CSP is I’m not sure we did a very good job of 

educating farmers around the country of really what the program 

is and how you can take advantage of it. I notice you said you did 

not participate in the program until 2005. 

Mr. ANDREW. No, sir. Chairman, I was watching your program 

while it was being formed in the womb, and I waited until 2005 

when the Raccoon River Watershed was accepted. That as the first 

opportunity I had to apply. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. OK. Have you experienced a similar reaction from farmers as you have been around the country from an 

education standpoint on what they can or might be able to take advantage of there? 

Mr. ANDREW. Very much so, sir. Again, the National No-Till Conference in Saint Louis last January, we had farmers from all over 

the United States. We had a room, and it was the most heavily attended area, for a breakout session on CSP. It was like a cacophony 

of voices. 

You had so many interpretations and rules and different states 

and almost downright arguments over, ‘‘No, it’s this way. No, it’s 

that.’’ For farmers, we are kind of used to pretty much across the 

board programs. 

I guess between that and the speediness with which things are 

done, I’m always intrigued with the fatback and the pick program 

days of the Reagan years. We could seed down thousands of acres 

over night, get paid and make more money than we ever made in 

our life. 

Yet, along comes CSP, and I recognize it’s a new Federal program, but the delay factor and the drag of developing it and implementing it and getting the correct information to the country, a 

man could grow cobwebs out in the country waiting for it. 

We farmers, we are pretty high-geared. We get right in the field 

and we live on kind of an annual system of life, from sowing the 

crop to harvesting it and starting over again. It is very hard to accept something that drags on for a couple of years, and when you 

finally get it then it’s changing every year, depending on funding 

levels or whatever. 

44

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Kennamer, I’m intrigued by your idea 

of giving a higher Environmental Benefits Index score for landowners who are willing to open their CRP acres to public hunting. 

You also suggest that two properties rank equally, the landowner 

willing to open their land to public access or use should have preference for funding eligibility. Would you comment on that proposal 

in a little more detail, please? 

Mr. KENNAMER. Well, I think a good example, Senator, is that 

conservation impacts a lot of local communities. When people come 

to hunt and if you look like, taking Kansas, for example, in the 

Midwest, they have over $1 million acres of land that landowners 

have leased to the state for public hunting. We are obviously concerned about public hunting. 

A hundred and eighty-six thousand bird hunters will generate about $121 million in that particular economy of Kansas. Fifty percent of that land is in CRP, and so the communities that are going 

to benefit from a lot of that and a lot of species like the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken and others would be able to benefit. 

I guess the point I want to make is that whatever program we 

do that is going to help these landowners to be able to provide 

wildlife and have good, good incentives to do that is going to be 

good for the local community and ultimately for us. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Sims, generally NACD supports a 

greater balance among the conservation programs. How would you 

better balance them besides providing more funding? Do you support reducing the acreage gap for CRP? What do you think would 

be a good balance? 

Mr. SIMS. A good balance needs to be determined, in my opinion, 

Mr. Chairman, based on the needs out there at the ground level. 

I apologize if I start to stray from your questions just a little bit, 

but I want to put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the local 

workgroups and how they determine the priorities for the utilization of our conservation programs. I think that’s absolutely paramount. As far as the cap on CRP, you know, there is a great debate 

across the country about CRP right now. 

I guess the position that we have at this point as our organization works the issue is that we are very, very supportive of CRP 

and the work that it has done to address those sensitive plans and 

feel in the future that it needs to stay focused on those highly erodible lands. Perhaps, there are some areas that we can do some adjustment on in that particular program right there. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Andrew, Federal funding of course is 

not limitless. While I expect Congress will continue to increase its 

support for conservation over time, I do not expect big increases in 

spending in the near future because of the budget constraints that 

we are likely to have in the next farm bill. 

This means we need to find other ways to meet our conservation 

goals. Are you and the Iowa Soybean Association looking for other 

ways to get more bang for our buck out of our conservation programs? Do you have any thoughts you might give us on that? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes, sir, our Soybean Association has been the recipient of several funds from Congress for nitrogen research on 

farm, whole farm research projects. That has done more, kind of 

the old Missouri ‘‘show me’’ attitude, to change the minds of farmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30425.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
45

ers than all of—I shouldn’t say all—but a lot of the research that 

comes out printed from Iowa State University. 

If a farmer can see based on what his neighbor does or what he 

himself does in a participation project on 40 acres or so of his own 

land, it will go a long way. The example being years ago I used to 

put 180 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on to grow an acre of corn. 

Based on research that I’ve done with Iowa State University in 

nitrogen strip plots, I now use 100 pounds, and that’s a considerable lessening. It makes me feel good that I’m not contributing to 

the hypoxia zone, and it also improves the groundwater in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, as they drink out of the Raccoon River. 

It saves me, particularly this year when nitrogen prices went to $485 a ton, it has just saved me a lot of money in producing corn. 

Similarly, being a no-till user my fuel costs are about a third to a 

half at the most of what the conventional tillage guys are. When 

I go to a meeting and I hear them crying about high-priced diesel 

fuel and high-priced gas, I say, ‘‘You ought to take a look at this.’’

Well, this spring I’ve witnessed more neighbors no tilling their 

ground than I’ve ever seen in the past. When I ask them, they say, 

‘‘We finally got smart and followed you, and we’re going to do it 

your way because we save so much, versus the old way.’’

Chairman CHAMBLISS. That’s interesting. You know, farmers continue to be creative and innovative. That’s the only way you can 

survive, so it’s good advice you gave your neighbors, and I’m glad 

they heeded you. 

How would you have implemented CSP, given the limited funds 

and other restrictions placed on the program since 2002, if you 

could jump into the shoes of the folks at NRCS and make a decision on how it should have been implemented? 

Mr. ANDREW. That’s a very difficult question, and it’s one that I 

have stewed with and stayed up a lot of nights. I don’t know, I 

guess I’ve always kind of had the standard response, that’s above 

my pay grade. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ANDREW. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. I guess I would really 

have to devote a lot more time thinking, and I don’t have a grasp. 

In preparing my talks, I would flash up a slide of the whole continental United States and protectorates. I never realized there was 

CSP in Guam and Puerto Rico. 

I would like to see CSP put out for me, an old Midwest farm boy, 

what the hell does CSP amount to in Guam. Are we protecting volcanoes or forest jungles or what? Because we’ve got to realize that 

we have so much great differences in topography across this country. 

It is very difficult for my mind-set that’s been farming that same 

piece of land for 34 years to put myself in the shoes of that producer in Guam or Alaska or Florida or wherever, and so I would 

have some real difficulties answering your question, sir. I admit it’s 

beyond my pay grade. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Spronk, I appreciate and respect the 

effort pork producers have put into making EQIP work better for 

pork producers. Your testimony mentions several items that could 

have improved EQIP’s effectiveness. What do you think is the most 

needed change in the direction of EQIP? 

46

Mr. SPRONK. I guess I would refer to Mr. Sims as he had testimony on the technical service provider part of it. There are some 

things in Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans that we as 

pork producers could use where we need to develop mass balance 

for the farm. All the nutrients on the farm and where they are ending up, you know, that is a program that I would wholeheartedly 

support more increased funding for in the TSP program. 

I think it was pretty well as I stated earlier to Senator Coleman’s 

question, you know, we need these regulations to help, in order to 

comply with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. 

You know, if we can any time for the Clean Water Act, any time 

that we can use mobile equipment to actually take those nutrients 

and spread them over more acres, it’s appropriate, in addition to 

anything we can do as we need to come into compliance with the 

Clean Air Act, anything that we can help with mitigation and to 

create that toolbox for producers, to help with whether it be a particulate matter or ammonia emissions or hydrogen sulfide emissions. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Is there an anti-pork bias in RCS? 

Mr. SPRONK. I don’t know that I would go that far. I think it’s 

just very difficult for the local providers to take the programs and 

apply them to pork. As I stated earlier, some of the times we are 

biased. I’ve got facilities that they are engineered cement containment pits with roofs on them. 

It doesn’t go anywhere unless I put it there, and so the only 

thing where I’m vulnerable is during my manure application. I’ve 

got a manure management plan, but that doesn’t mean we can’t 

improve on what we’re doing. So to a certain extent of it, we have 

already set the bar high; in order to go higher, we need some additional help. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, the only reason I asked that is because the previous conversation here this morning about it seems 

like the beef producers are taking more advantage of EQIP, obviously, and maybe we have done some things to design it to favor 

beef over pork. We need to make sure that we are treating everybody equitably. 

We in the Southeast have started utilizing EQIP more with our 

chicken production facilities, and we want to make sure that we 

are treating everybody fairly with all of these programs. 

Norm, do you have anything else? 

Mr. COLEMAN. I don’t have anything else. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. 

There may be some questions to be submitted by our other members who could not be here today. I will say that to both panels. 

We will leave the record open for 24 hours. Anybody who wishes 

to submit additional questions, we will get them to you, and I 

would ask that you promptly respond to them. Staff tells me we are 

doing 5 days instead of 24 hours. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. We will get over the next few days any 

questions that may be forthcoming. Thank you all very much. This 

has been a very informative hearing. 

We stand adjourned. 

47

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 2006, the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 7, 2006

50


30425.001
51


30425.002
52


30425.003
53


30425.004
54


30425.005
55


30425.006
56


30425.007
57


30425.008
58


30425.009
59


30425.010
60


30425.011
61


30425.012
62


30425.013
63


30425.014
64


30425.015
65


30425.016
66


30425.017
67


30425.018
68


30425.019
69


30425.020
70


30425.021
71


30425.022
72


30425.023
73


30425.024
74


30425.025
75


30425.026
76


30425.027
77


30425.028
78


30425.029
79


30425.030
80


30425.031
81


30425.032
82


30425.033
83


30425.034
84


30425.035
85


30425.036
86


30425.037
87


30425.038
88


30425.039
89


30425.040
90


30425.041
91


30425.042
92


30425.043
93


30425.044
94


30425.045
95


30425.046
96


30425.047
97


30425.048
98


30425.049
99


30425.050
100


30425.051
101


30425.052
102


30425.053
103


30425.054
104


30425.055
105


30425.056
106


30425.057
107


30425.058
108


30425.059
109


30425.060
110


30425.061
111


30425.062
112


30425.063
113


30425.064
114


30425.065
115


30425.066
116


30425.067
117


30425.068
118


30425.069
119


30425.070
120


30425.071
121


30425.072
122


30425.073
123


30425.074
124


30425.075
125


30425.076
126


30425.077
127


30425.078
128


30425.079
129


30425.080
130


30425.081
131


30425.082
132


30425.083
133


30425.084
134


30425.085
(135)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

JUNE 7, 2006

136


30425.086
137


30425.087
138

Æ