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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–053 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–155

CONSERVATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR THE FARM BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 1, 2007

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

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

MARK HALVERSON, Majority Staff Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Minority Staff Director 

VERNIE HUBERT, Minority General Counsel 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Conservation Policy Recommendations for the Farm Bill .................................... 1

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 1

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia ......................................... 2

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from Maryland ................................. 6

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from Vermont ......................................... 9

Panel I 

Doyle, Hon. Jim, Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, on behalf of 

the Midwestern Governors Association .............................................................. 4

Menendez, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from New Jersey ................................... 7

Panel II 

Hansen, John, President, Nebraska Farmers Union, Lincoln Nebraska, on 

behalf of the National Farmers Union ............................................................... 20

Harrington, Bob, State Forester, Missoula, Montana, on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters .................................................................. 24

Hoefner, Ferd, Policy Director, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 18

Sibbing, Julie, Senior Program Manager for Agriculture and Wetlands Policy, 

National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC ................................................. 21

Sims, Olin, President, National Association of Conservation District, McFadden, Wyoming ....................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 38

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 42

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L. ................................................................................ 43

Doyle, Hon. Jim (with attachments) ............................................................... 46

Hansen, John .................................................................................................... 76

Harrington, Bob ................................................................................................ 83

Hoefner, Ferd .................................................................................................... 87

Menendez, Hon. Robert .................................................................................... 104

Sibbing, Julie (with attachments) ................................................................... 106

Sims, Olin .......................................................................................................... 146

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

American Peanut Shellers Association, prepared statement ............................... 154

Coevolution Institute (CoE), prepared statement ................................................. 159

Cullen Bryant, Farmer, prepared statement ......................................................... 165

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, prepared statement ............................... 166

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, prepared statement ............ 174

The National Pork Producers Council, prepared statement ................................ 179

Page

IV

Various Organizations, Researchers and Individuals, prepared statement ....... 193

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad: 

Written questions for all panelists .................................................................. 196

Hoefner, Ferd: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Thad Chochran ............................ 197

(1)

CONSERVATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR THE FARM BILL 

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room SR–

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Leahy, Stabenow, Salazar, Brown, 

Klobuchar, Chambliss, Lugar, and Crapo. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman HARKIN. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee will come to order. Today our hearing focuses on 

the Conservation Title of the farm bill, and we have two distinguished panels of witnesses. I particularly want to express my 

gratitude to Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin for his appearance 

here representing the Midwestern Governors Association. I also 

want to thank our colleagues, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland and 

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who I am sure will be 

here shortly. 

Now, while this hearing exclusively focuses on the Conservation 

Title, the Committee has already heard views from many witnesses 

on conservation in a recent series of hearings on livestock and commodities in many of our field hearings. Now, that is appropriate because, increasingly, agricultural producers integrate conservation of 

soil, water, air, and wildlife into their production practices. 

By and large, the message I have heard from these previous 

hearings is that farmers want us to provide the tools they need to 

most effectively farm their land. They want programs that help 

them do better conservation on the land that produces food, fiber, 

and fuel for America. The current demand for commodities such as 

corn only increases the need for effective conservation programs as 

land that was seen as marginal is brought into production to meet 

that demand. So there is an increase in demand for conservation 

assistance, yet the funding available is not enough to deal with the 

needs that exist now, let alone ones that will come down the pike. 

The Wetlands Reserve Program, for example, has reached its 

cap. It has no ongoing baseline. Just to maintain the current proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35053.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
2

gram over the next 5 years would cost about $2 billion. The Grassland Reserve Program also has no ongoing baseline. 

The biggest hit to the programs, however, has been the cuts 

made to the Conservation Security Program. Long-term caps imposed by the previous Appropriations Committee and in reconciliation—both done, I might add, in conference reports without the 

ability to amend or to have a vote—have cut this program by some 

$4 billion and put the caps on it, which we never had in the last 

farm bill. As written, CSP uncapped entitlement program, and, 

again, just for your benefit, I will repeat, as I repeat as often as 

I can: For the first time in history in 2003, the Congress took 

money out of agriculture to pay for disaster. 

We had never done it before, and we have not done it since. Or 

at least the bill that the President has headed to him right now 

has disaster money in there, but it comes out of emergency spending not agriculture. We did not say to any State—we did not say 

to Louisiana, for example, when we got them money for Katrina, 

we did not say, ‘‘OK, now we are going to take it out of your highway money. We are going to take it out of your education money.’’

No, we never do that. Whenever there is a disaster, we pay for 

it out of the general revenue. We all pay for it. Yet, in 2003, this 

administration—and this Congress going along with it, I might 

add—took money out of conservation just to pay for disasters, and 

that has made us, as I said, some $4 billion short in conservation. 

Think what that would have meant had we had that money there 

for conservation. 

Well, the damage has been great, and it is going to be tough to 

recover from that $4 billion hole unless we get that $4 billion restored. And I do not see that happening anytime soon. But I just 

wanted to make that point just to let you know that, as I told Governor Doyle, I said I am proud of the fact that this Committee, 

when I last chaired it in 2001 and 2002, put in the biggest increase 

ever in conservation funding of any farm bill. We had an 80–percent increase in conservation. But a lot of that has been eroded, as 

I just mentioned. A lot of that has been eroded. And so now we 

need to come back and do it again, and we have expert panels here 

today to talk about conservation and what it means in their States 

and suggestions for us in moving ahead on the farm bill. 

So what I would like to do is, first of all, say that all of your 

statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety, and 

I will first call on Governor Doyle. Before I do that, I will yield to 

Senator Chambliss for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

apologize for running late here. 

Conservation is a key component of our farm policy and enjoys 

broad support from a wide variety of conservation, environmental, 

farm, forestry, and wildlife organizations. The vast interest in conservation programs also demonstrates how valuable farmers and 

ranchers are to the protection and enhancement of our land and 

environmental resources. 

3

One particular area I would like to address in the 2007 farm bill 

is how agriculture and individual farmers can help tackle climate 

change. While I am not sure we understand all the science of climate change, there are some reasonable steps we can take to begin 

mitigating its effects and ensure agriculture can meaningfully participate in any future emission reduction program developed by 

Congress. 

It is estimated that agriculture is responsible for 6 percent of all 

greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, but it also helps to 

offset those emissions. And it can do even more by sequestering additional carbon in soils and biomass, capturing methane gas from 

livestock operations, and replacing fossil fuels with biofuels produced on farms and forests. 

I am encouraged by Federal, State, and private efforts over the 

past few years to include agriculture in carbon credit trading programs. However, it is time to go beyond the minimum standards 

that have been set and develop more robust certification, measurement, and verification standards. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed to create a 

board to establish and oversee these standards. We should carefully review this proposal for inclusion in the farm bill. We have 

a great opportunity with the 2007 farm bill to further incorporate 

climate change into existing conservation and energy programs and 

to ensure agriculture can participate in carbon and ecosystem services markets. I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with you 

to make this opportunity a reality. 

Before I close, I would like to welcome Senator Cardin and Senator Menendez to the Ag Committee. Guys, it is good to see you 

all here. Thank you for taking time to share with us your priorities 

for the 2007 farm bill. As you know, farm bills are carefully crafted 

legislative packages that balance many competing interests and 

seek to address concerns from all parts of the country. I hope that 

as we work to address your concerns, you will also recognize and 

work with us to address ours. If we do that, I believe we will have 

a strong 2007 farm bill that supports farmers and ranchers, protects and enhances our environment, provides sustenance to the 

needy, and promotes rural America 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

And now we will turn to our witnesses. First, we will recognize 

the Honorable Jim Doyle, Governor of the State of Wisconsin. Governor Doyle was elected Governor in 2002, then re-elected in 2006, 

my notes tell me, with more votes than any candidate for Governor 

in Wisconsin history. Before that, from 1990 to 1998, he served as 

the Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin, before that had 

his own private law practice. 

Governor Doyle, welcome to the Committee, and please proceed. 

If you could, I am going to ask everyone just if you can keep it to 

basically 5 minutes or so, I would sure appreciate it, and then we 

will get through this panel, have a few questions. 

So, Governor Doyle, welcome. 

4

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DOYLE, GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN, 

MADISON, WISCONSIN, ON BEHALF OF THE MIDWESTERN 

GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

Governor Doyle. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and, 

Senator Chambliss, members of the Committee. And I did have the 

honor of serving as Attorney General with Senator Salazar in those 

years, and we did a lot of work together on environmental issues 

and conservation and so on. 

I am very pleased to be here to have an opportunity to discuss 

the Conservation Title of the farm bill. I am here in my role as the 

Governor of the State of Wisconsin, but also as chairman of the 

Midwest Governors Association. The Midwest Governors Association has advanced a full slate of farm bill recommendations and 

policy objectives which are in a nice packet and will be shared with 

all of the members of the Committee. 

I particularly want to thank Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, the Immediate Past Chair of the Governors Association, 

who worked very hard to put that set of recommendations together 

that comes from Midwest Governors, Democrats and Republicans 

alike. 

I have also worked very closely with my colleagues in the Midwest Governors to identify three priority areas to address during 

my term as Chair: first, we will work to achieve energy independence and fight global warming through the use of biofuels and 

other renewable energy sources; second, we will increase our region’s trade potential, reaping the economic opportunities that 

come with it; and, finally—and what brings me here today, what 

is incredibly important to us in the Midwest, as it is to States, particularly heavy agricultural States across the country—is the reauthorization of the farm bill. 

Creating a farm bill that enhances Wisconsin’s ability and the 

ability of the region to pursue new energy technologies from agriculture and forest products, protects our working agricultural and 

forestlands, provides nutrition to our families, and supports rural 

economic development is vital not only to the strength of the State 

of Wisconsin but to our region and to the entire Nation. 

In Wisconsin, we have a history that we are very proud of in conservation. We are the home of Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the 

great Senator Gaylord Nelson, and we have long recognized that 

we must be good stewards of the land and conserve our invaluable 

natural resources. 

So today I have been asked by the Committee to focus my testimony on the Conservation Title of the farm bill, something I feel 

very strongly about, because as a Governor and working through 

all of our conservation programs in the State, we rely very, very 

heavily on our agricultural community, which is so important to 

the good conservation practices in the State. 

While more than half of America’s land is managed by farmers, 

three out of four farmers are rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. And in Wisconsin, more than one-third of conservation requests have been unfunded. Current Federal farm policies, we hope, will do more to assist farmers who share the cost of 

ensuring clean air, clean water, sufficient wildlife habitat, and a 

stable climate. 

5

A new farm bill we hope will also better recognize the important 

role played by State government. Increased funding of the StateFederal conservation partnerships is not just a good idea. It may 

be absolutely necessary for future farm policy, and it is this model 

of partnership that should guide us as we move farm conservation 

policies forward in the next farm bill. 

Farmers in Wisconsin, as they are in States all across the country, are really the backbone of our State, and they are certainly 

central to our conservation efforts. They are proud of who they are 

and what they do with their land. And if this bill provides them 

with the tools they need, they will provide our country with the renewable energy that is good for our national security and our environment. 

To success in this effort, I encourage Congress to director the 

United States Department of Agriculture to explore new methods 

to promote managed and sustainable biomass harvest on lands enrolled in the conservation programs, and particularly the Conservation Reserve Program. Furthermore, the USDA should explore 

ways to properly manage biomass removal from lands under active 

agriculture and timber production to ensure proper management. 

These new initiatives will be consistent with existing conservation 

programs and will inspire valuable new opportunities for farmers 

in Wisconsin and across the country. 

There are several, obviously a lot of very specific programs. I 

could just briefly mention three. 

The Conservation Research Enhancement Program is an important part of what we do in Wisconsin as a good partnership between our farm community and the State government. In Wisconsin, CREP is currently authorized for 100,000 acres and brings 

in payments of $40 million annually to Wisconsin landowners. We 

certainly hope that you are going to consider expanding the national acreage cap to 40 million acres so we can bring more into 

the program. 

Second, the EQIP program, Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program, is based on working with farmers for good conservation 

practices, and we have many of our current applicants being denied. We hope you are really going to—it has proven to be a model 

that has been very effective. 

And, finally, the Wetlands Reserve Program, what has happened 

in Wisconsin is that as the value of this land goes down, the program is now being used in much smaller percentages than it was 

in recent years. And as we know, good wetland preservation is absolutely important for the environmental health of our States. 

So, again, I thank you very much for allowing me to give my 

views here today, and we look forward—I know the Midwest Governors do, and I know the Governors across the country, we look 

forward to working with you to get a good, balanced farm bill and 

one particularly that furthers the conservation efforts that are 

going on in our States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Doyle can be found on page 

46 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Governor Doyle, thank you very much, and if 

time permits, if you could wait until we get through the other two, 

6

and then some people may have some questions or engage you on 

this. 

Next we will turn to Senator Cardin. Senator Cardin was first 

elected to the U.S. Senate this year, in January of 2007, and before 

that served in the House of Representatives representing the 3rd 

District and elected to the House in 1987 and then became one of 

the youngest speakers of the Maryland House of Delegates in 

Maryland history, a position he held for 8 years. 

So, again, Senator Cardin, Ben, welcome to the Committee, and 

please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and members of the Committee. I really do appreciate this opportunity to 

testify before you today. Agriculture is Maryland’s largest industry. 

The State’s 12,100 farms cover more than 2 million acres and produced $1.3 billion of agricultural products annually. But the reason 

that I ask for your support and come before the Committee today 

is not limited to the importance of agriculture to Maryland. 

The Chesapeake Bay is America’s largest estuary. The watershed 

covers 64,000 square miles. The bay and its tidal rivers have more 

shoreline than the entire west coast of the United States. The 

Chesapeake is central to the economy, history, culture, and social 

fabric of my State and this entire region. 

All of us recognize that the health of the Chesapeake Bay is at 

risk. Every summer we see low oxygen ‘‘dead zones’’ and historically low numbers of blue crabs and native oysters. 

The Bay States have adopted the most comprehensive watershed 

cleanup strategy in the Nation. More than 450 wastewater treatment facilities have had to cut their nitrogen and phosphorus discharges substantially. Maryland now requires that both dishwashing soaps and laundry detergents be phosphorous free. Scotts, 

the Nation’s largest lawn care company, has agreed to cut in half 

the amount of phosphorous in its do-it-yourself lawn fertilizers in 

the Chesapeake watershed. The Bay States have adopted nitrogen 

oxide air pollution controls that go well beyond the Federal requirements. These will translate into less nitrogen deposits into the bay 

waters. 

I mention these non-agricultural initiatives because we must ask 

all sectors of the economy to contribute their fair share to the effort 

to restore the bay. 

The single largest source of excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

sediment into the bay is from agriculture. The USDA’s conservation programs are critically important to both sustaining agriculture and simultaneously minimizing its impact on the water resources of the basin. Chesapeake Bay watershed farmers have 

made extensive use of existing conservation programs and support 

their expansion under the 2007 farm bill. 

As you begin to craft the Conservation Title of the next farm bill, 

I ask that you give the farmers of the Chesapeake region the tools 

they need to be successful—both in the marketplace and as stewards of this national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. 

7

Mr. Chairman, in my written testimony I have listed a number 

of specific recommendations. Let me just summarize them just very 

briefly. 

No. 1, our farmers need a broad array of conservation tools. Not 

all farms are alike. We need a comprehensive set of programs with 

broad eligibility requirements to address those needs. 

No. 2, technical assistance can be as important as direct funding. 

Trusted, on-the-ground experts are invaluable in our farming community. 

Three, we need to target our conservation dollars to the areas 

that have demonstrated water quality needs. I think we can further refine that targeting by putting our conservation dollars to 

work in watersheds where all segments of society are doing their 

part for water quality improvements. 

Mr. Chairman, the needs in the Chesapeake watershed are great, 

but we have farmers with a proven track record of supporting 

every conservation program that Government has made available 

to them. We owe it to our farmers, and we owe it to the Chesapeake. 

I appreciate your time, and I do look forward to working with the 

Committee so we have a balanced, comprehensive farm bill that we 

all can be proud of. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin can be 

found on page 43 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Now we turn to Senator Menendez of New Jersey. Senator 

Menendez was appointed to fill the unexpired term of former Senator, now Governor, Jon Corzine; just elected to his first full term 

in the United States; prior to that, a long-time member of the 

House and one of the House leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Again, Senator Menendez, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you and the members of the Committee. I appreciate your leadership for a long time in this field in 

making this a country of great bounty and trying to share that 

bounty with more and more Americans. And I appreciate Senator 

Chambliss’ comments about working toward a bill that all of America can take pride in and participate in. 

I want to focus my comments on legislation that I have introduced with others, the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 

2007. As you work to develop this year’s farm bill, I hope you will 

consider including some of the very important components of this 

legislation. The Healthy Farms bill is crucial because we have a 

tremendous opportunity this year to set a healthier course for 

American agriculture, to allow our farmers, ranchers, and foresters 

to thrive while giving them the tools they need to meet our environmental and energy challenges, to open up new markets and opportunities for our small farmers, and to provide consumers and 

school children with more fresh fruits and vegetables, and make it 

easier for lower-income Americans and the elderly to have access 

8

to healthier foods. Like all legislation, a farm bill in my mind is 

a statement of priorities and of values, and the Healthy Farms, 

Foods, and Fuels Act embodies many of the priorities and values 

that I believe we as a Nation should be focused on. 

Now, though many people are not aware of New Jersey’s thriving 

agricultural sector, Mr. Chairman, we are the second largest producers of blueberries, cultivated blueberries in the Nation, peach 

orchards, cranberry bogs, fourth largest producer of spinach, and 

the list goes on and on. The fact is that we are the Garden State, 

and a healthy agricultural sector nationwide, one that addresses 

the needs of all of our farmers, whether they grow corn in the Midwest or blueberries in the Midatlantic, is essential for New Jersey 

to remain the Garden State. 

However, New Jersey farmers are under a tremendous amount 

of pressure. They operate in a very high-cost environment and see 

development encroaching on their farms from all sides. And often 

that development opportunity is greater to them than that which 

they could have by maintaining and operating their farms, but they 

choose to do so. This is often multigenerational family farmers. So 

conservation programs are crucial to the survival of agriculture in 

the Garden State and to the protection of sensitive wetlands and 

animal habitats. That is why the Healthy Farms bill increases 

funding and expands eligibility for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Security Program, the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat 

Incentive Program. 

New Jersey farmers are also among the most prolific in the country in growing fruits and vegetables, yet they are often just a few 

miles from distressed communities where children struggle for access to nutritional foods. The Healthy Farms bill expands the Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Program to schools in all States, giving more 

children access to healthy snacks. The bill also expands the Farmers Market Promotion Program and provides additional funding for 

programs that allow seniors and low-income families to obtain food 

at farmers markets. Not only do these programs help people eat 

healthier, they provide an additional market for farmers. 

This is, of course, just the start of a conversation. As we move 

forward this year, I believe we must work together on issues of 

farm profitability, entrepreneurship, innovation, toward a farm bill 

that emphasizes flexibility, efficiency, and equitable distribution of 

its Government programs. This will help to ensure successful for 

our family farm enterprises and the wider community of farm bill 

beneficiaries, both large and small, near urbanized areas and in 

more rural settings throughout all regions of the country. 

Ideally, an emphasis on the diversity of agriculture and related 

businesses, their interaction with the citizens who are their ultimate customers, and the role these enterprises play in addressing 

issues of nutrition, hunger, and economic growth throughout our 

Nation will join with conservation and environmental issues to 

form what I hope you will fashion as a comprehensive farm bill 

that will serve the Nation well for the next 5 years and beyond. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity, and we look 

forward to working with you. When I ran for the Senate, I never 

9

thought I would be sitting here before the Ag Committee, but to be 

very honest with you, it is incredibly important to our State and 

obviously to our Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert Menendez can be found 

on page 104 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Very true. I am very familiar with New Jersey ag. You might not think that, but I am. I will tell you about 

that later. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HARKIN. I thank all of our witnesses who are here. I 

am going to yield my time right now. Senator Leahy I know had 

to leave early to chair another hearing, and I wanted to yield to 

him for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. I think I might be less than that. 

Governor Doyle, Senator Menendez, Senator Cardin, I am glad to 

be here with all of you. 

You will notice that Senator Lugar and I are watching you from 

the back of the room. That is because when the two of us first came 

to this Committee, Senator Menendez, we were sitting way down 

there. And a quick lesson on how things run when two cigar-smoking Senators, one being the Chairman up here, reeked of cigar 

smoke; one moved a huge amendment like this; the other one said, 

‘‘It is accepted without objection.’’ I said, ‘‘Could I ask what is in 

the amendment?’’ They looked down trying to figure out who these 

two guys were on the end. The Chairman kind of shrugs, goes, ‘‘We 

are adjourned.’’

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. It has just changed, Mr. Chairman, I must say. 

And I want to thank you for——

Senator CARDIN. Senator Leahy, it sounds like the Judiciary 

Committee today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. Where do you think I learned? 

But the 2002 farm bill does represent historic commitment to the 

conservation of America’s privately owned farm and forest landscape, and in this 2007 farm bill I think we can build on the 2002 

farm bill, especially in some areas: a boost in funding working 

lands conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the 

Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, the Regional Equity Requirement. 

These have been particularly helpful not only in Vermont but 

throughout the country. I hope we can find additional funding, Mr. 

Chairman, for this and actually expand the Regional Equity Requirement this year. 

I also think the farm bill presents a unique opportunity to expand USDA’s working lands conservation programs to ensure private forested landowners have access to these successful conservation programs and find new, exciting opportunities for this reauthorization such as developing an organic conversion program within the Conservation Title, to give needed technical and financial asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35053.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
10

sistance for producers seeking to transition to organic production. 

A lot of people want to go to organic production. It is very difficult 

that first year or so as you make the transition. They need the 

technical help. They need the help to do it. Once they have done 

it, they can be very—they can join what is really about the fastestgrowing part of agriculture. But they have to be able to do it and 

have that transition. 

I might add also in the rural development area, the Department 

of Agriculture has to look again at what they have done in rural 

broadband. They have been very eager to put it into cities and 

towns that already have cable or some other way of doing it. But 

we have got to get it out into the rural areas. 

Mr. Chairman, I will put my full statement in the record. I do 

look forward to this farm bill. I have been here during the past 22 

years for a number of these 5–year farm bills—not every 5 years—

but it is a tremendous opportunity for things that should be done, 

and I look forward to working with you and with Senator 

Chambliss and getting it done. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I just want to respond by saying I thank you for all the years on this Committee, 

but in particular for your strong, early, and long-time support for 

conservation. 

I dare say no one really matched the breadth, depth, and the fervor with which Senator Leahy has brought conservation to the forefront over many years. And so we look forward to working with you 

on this title also this year. 

Do any Senators have any questions for our panel? I will be glad 

to recognize, of course, Senator Chambliss, if you had any questions for the panel at all. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. They are such a distinguished group that 

they have answered all my questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HARKIN. All right. Senator Salazar? 

Senator SALAZAR. I do not have questions. I just had a welcoming 

comment to Governor Doyle. Obviously, we see Senator Menendez 

and Senator Cardin all the time, and I am proud to see what they 

do in their States. But, Governor Doyle, welcome before our Committee. I remember fondly working with you for many years in your 

service as Attorney General, and I am very proud of your efforts 

as Governor. 

We used to say in those days, before Governor Doyle broke 

through the ceiling of getting an Attorney General elected as a 

Governor, that AG stood for ‘‘aspiring Governors.’’

[Laughter.] 

Senator SALAZAR. And he actually not only aspired, but he got 

there. Sometimes when I think about John Cornyn, myself, Mark 

Pryor, and others, maybe we were AS’s, you know, ‘‘aspiring Senators,’’ and did not quite know it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SALAZAR. Congratulations to you, Governor, and it is 

good to see you here today. 

Governor Doyle. Thank you, Senator. It is good to see you, too. 

Chairman HARKIN. Senator Lugar, did you have anything? 

11

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank these 

three distinguished gentlemen. It is really great to have their testimony and, likewise, hopefully their support of our efforts. I know 

you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Chambliss are trying very hard 

to pull together a huge number of complex issues. This is a very 

important part, and you know of my support, Mr. Chairman, for 

conservation parts, and I like Senator Chambliss’ opening comment 

in which he suggests USDA might come forward with standards for 

carbon sequestration, soil, trees, other projects. This is something 

that we have been involved with on my farm, the Chicago Climate 

Exchange, and are trying to work with Purdue on some standards 

that might make this more general. 

But these are ways in which local farmers and farm groups at 

the grass roots can participate in these broad subjects of climate 

change and likewise provide additional income. 

I know that the Governor and the Senators today will be working 

with their farmers who are curious about this. But I wanted to underline that particular topic. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HARKIN. Very good. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Senator Brown? 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Doyle, welcome. Nice to see you. 

Ben and Bob, thank you for your comments. Senator Cardin, 

your comments especially were helpful about the Chesapeake Bay. 

Lake Erie has suffered some of the same problems and many of the 

same challenges the Chesapeake Bay has, and I think your prescriptive ideas there are helpful, and we will pursue as many of 

those as we can. 

Senator Menendez, on your comments, just a brief question. 

What you say I think is intriguing about matching low-income people up, particularly fruits and vegetables, with your farmers. I 

know you have legislation, but talk through, if you would for a moment, both from the sort of legislative side of what we do to encourage farmers markets and WHIP program and all that we can do 

with fruits and vegetables directly to consumers, and if you have 

any thoughts about what a Senate office can do, sort of county by 

county, community by community, to help sort of encourage or 

stimulate more of that in our communities, especially in low-income areas, but not necessarily confined to that. If you would just 

take a minute or two on that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Sure. Well, you know, in New Jersey one of 

our challenges is to get from the producer, from the farmer, to the 

marketplace, and to do it in a high-cost environment. And what we 

have matched is a combination of the producer to the school lunch 

programs so that we can have better nutritional opportunities for 

our kids, to match them with after-school programs, and to match 

them in farmers markets, particularly in urban centers, so creating 

urban support for a farming purpose, and in the State of New Jersey creating support for bond issues, for example, where overwhelmingly the majority of the population of the State is located 

in either urban and suburban communities that are non-farming, 

but support very significant, robust investment into keeping New 

Jersey the Garden State. 

12

So part of what we seek to do in our legislation is enhance the 

opportunities for farmers to go to farmers markets, to be hooked 

up for children’s nutrition, and to incentivize and help them in 

achieving those connections going from their producing opportunities to the marketplace and making it more successful along the 

way. And we think that the merger, as we look to the agricultural 

bill overall, where clearly the great bulk of the money will not come 

to areas like mine but, nonetheless, for which we are collectively 

a Nation, that it creates support from very important pockets of the 

Nation to be supportive of a broader ag bill that understands that 

we are all in this together, that there are those who produce, those 

who consume, and at the end of the day, if we can make those marriages, we do so in a way that is very positive. 

I believe that our legislation helps to incentivize and work with 

and link the farmers to two very important opportunities: creating 

great, high-quality food for urban areas, where people have challenges financially and can be able to buy that food at very reasonable prices, and at the same time improve the nutrition of our children at a time in which we are looking at national obesity being 

a major challenge. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar and I have had conversations 

about food stamps and how the value of food stamps has declined 

in the last 20 years for far too many families. This is so important 

as we try to increase that, but to do much of Senator Menendez’s 

comments would be very helpful. Thank you. 

Chairman HARKIN. Any other Senators? Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 

my colleagues and also to Governor Doyle. I grew up having my big 

vacations taking the Milwaukee Road to Wisconsin, where my 

mother was from, and my big highlight was visiting Sampson, the 

Gorilla, at the Milwaukee Zoo. 

Governor Doyle. Good. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But I just wanted to follow up a little on 

what you have talked about in your written testimony today about 

this biofuel revolution going on in the Midwest. I want you to know 

that we have been working with several members of this Committee to introduce legislation that would offer incentives to farmers through the Conservation Security Program to produce our first 

generation of dedicated energy crops for cellulosic energy production. And I think that there are many farmers I know in Minnesota 

and in Wisconsin that are very interested in doing this with prairie 

fuels and other forms of biomass. I understand that we have a very 

strong corn ethanol as well as soybean-based biodiesel industry 

going, and we want to continue that. But as we get more and more 

of a demand and also as we work more and more on the climate 

change issue, we want to develop the next generation of ethanol. 

And I appreciate the Chairman’s leadership on this as well as 

yours. 

My only question would be if you could just expand on some of 

the efforts going on in your State. I know it is happening in Minnesota where we have adopted some very aggressive standards 

with electricity as well as ethanol and biodiesel. 

13

Governor Doyle. Well, Senator, thank you. We have tried to work 

very closely with Minnesota as we have moved forward, but clearly 

cellulosic, when you look at the conservation needs of agriculture 

and switchgrasses and, in States like Wisconsin and Minnesota, 

the vast forestlands that have the potential of both preserving 

those forests, which is one of the great challenges in our State—

and I know it is in Minnesota—to not see the Great Northern Forest carved up, and one of its great uses now can be cellulosic energy. 

So we are doing a whole variety of things in the State to encourage it. We actually have created a czar of renewable energy. And, 

of course, we are focused on—we have corn and soy as well, but 

really trying to move to the next generation. 

The second part of that I ought to just say that is very, very important that we have focused on is the research that is necessary 

to get there. We have helped as a State to capitalize companies 

that are working through various enzymes to increase the power of 

ethanol 10 times over. And so I think we are still just at the very 

beginning of the science of all of this and the technology of it. But 

as we are able to turn grasslands that are so important to the overall conservation of our States into energy-producing areas, it is a 

perfect example of how conservation and energy really come together. 

So I thank you for your comments. That is something we really 

look forward to working with you on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Chairman HARKIN. Anyone else? Yes, Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to 

our colleagues and Governor Doyle. Senator Cardin, when I think 

about the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, we have a lot of 

similar issues, and this Conservation Title is very important to 

that. 

I am wondering, though—I am thinking in particular, Senator 

Menendez, because I know you are interested in specialty crops—

if any of you would want to comment. We are considering adding 

a specialty crop title to the farm bill and really talking about what 

you have talked about in terms of nutrition and bringing fresh 

fruits and vegetables to our urban areas and farmers markets and 

really dovetailing what we are doing on nutrition with the need to 

support our growers. Orchards have different kinds of conservation 

programs than dry beans, for instance, both of which are in my 

State, but they have different needs and so on. 

But I wondered if you might—I know you have legislation as 

well, as I do and others, and I wondered if you might just speak 

to the specialty crop issue and your thoughts on that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate it, and in addition to our 

legislation, we have joined with you because we believe that the 

unique aspect that you take as it relates to specialty crops is very 

important, certainly important to a State like New Jersey with 

blueberries and peaches and other similar crops. 

I just happened to have this past Monday a statewide meeting 

of all my farmers with the Secretary of Agriculture and listening 

to some of their many challenges so that as we prepare for the debates that will be coming and the Committee’s work and what will 

14

come to the floor about, from their perspectives, some of these challenges. You know, one of the things they talked about is, for example, the great importance to them of research and having the ability to be more prolific in their production as a result of good research, in our case as the Rutgers Agricultural Station, in New Jersey. A tremendous amount of that research has helped them not 

only be more prolific, but on water quality issues, on food safety 

issues, and it has been very helpful. So that is one part of that 

issue. 

I think also the reality of this whole issue of how do we continuously meet the challenges of getting to marketplace, and for them 

often cutting out the middleman so that they can reap a greater 

amount of the profits that they are creating. 

So those are some of the unique insights that they were providing to me. There are some others, and I would be happy to send 

them on to you as you pursue your own legislation as well, as part 

of the overall effort. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you all very much. I just want to say, 

Governor Doyle, you mentioned in your written statement how 

much Wisconsin was putting into conservation, and prior to the 

last farm bill, we looked around and saw a lot of States—New Jersey, Maryland—a lot of States are putting State money into certain 

conservation practices. It occurred to us that there was very little 

coordination sometimes between the State and the Federal. 

And so we put a provision in the last farm bill called ‘‘Partnership and Cooperation,’’ which allowed the Secretary to use up to 5 

percent of any program money, conservation program money, as incentives to work with States to combine State and Federal money 

together and incentivize farmers to use both State and Federal conservation programs. 

That program has not been used, quite frankly, in the last 5, 7 

years, and we are going to look at it again. I guess what I would 

ask of the Midwest Governors, if you could for me, is to go back 

to your think tank, your people back there, and ask them if they 

could provide for us any suggestions on how we can better cooperate with State governments in maximizing the use of conservation 

monies so we are not duplicating, so that two things can work together. 

Obviously, one of the things I have in mind is the Conservation 

Security Program, which was a departure from the past. In the 

past almost all conservation programs had to deal with land taken 

out of production or production practices, taken out of production. 

Well, we thought about providing for conservation on working 

lands, which is the Conservation Security Program. 

You mentioned you had a new management plan in Wisconsin. 

Well, that is one of the big parts of CSP. What gets in my mind 

is, well, are we overlapping or are we promoting one another here? 

Obviously, what you are doing is what the CSP is supposed to do, 

too, and that obviously would apply especially to Maryland, nutrient management type programs on farms. 

So I am just curious about that interplay between State and Federal Government. 

Governor Doyle. Well, I will speak from my experience, which is 

because a lot of people, as I am sure in all of your States, work 

15

very hard out there, county agents and others, they are the ones 

that sort of have to try to sort these out for this complicated menu 

of some State, some Federal, and then a whole variety of State and 

a whole variety of Federal, that are available for a particular farmer who is looking for help. 

So I think there is no doubt we can improve on that. The nutrient management is the best example. I have just proposed a budget 

in which we nearly double our State commitment to grants going 

to farmers and others to help them do various things in nutrient 

management to help water quality, which is obviously an enormous 

issue. And for the State of Wisconsin, with our rivers and lakes, 

it is vitally important that we address it. 

I would be happy—I will certainly talk to the other Governors 

and discuss with you and your staff how we best do it, because we 

are all in this for the same purpose, and to the extent we can leverage each other’s resources in the most effective way, it is what we 

should be doing. 

The same is true of Senator Menendez and the comments he was 

making. We have a very active farmers market program, and we 

have a very rapidly developing organic segment. In fact, we are one 

of the top three States in the country in organic products. And, increasingly, farmers are finding those specialty products and organic 

products to be their profit centers. We have more and more demand for, as you said, Senator, how do you get started, how do you 

get—and I think also the public is now demanding greater and 

greater accountability about where the food sources came form and 

how they were grown, how they were raised. And to the extent that 

we all work together to demonstrate to the American people the 

quality of the food that they have, it is going to be better for all 

of us. 

The point you make is a very, very important one, and one that 

we should be in very close communication with you on. 

Chairman HARKIN. Because I want to enhance that cooperation 

program. If you have suggestions from the Governors on how we 

can better do that, I would appreciate that. 

Ben? 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for raising that. The 

cooperative funds could be a valuable source for the States. The 

Bay States, which have done a lot in conservation, have requested 

the use of these funds by the Secretary of Agriculture and have not 

gotten very far with it. 

So I think it might be helpful in the reauthorization process to 

really challenge why these funds have not been used, because there 

is a desire—you are right. Each of our States have been aggressive 

in this area, and it would be much better if we worked in cooperation and use the funds effectively. 

So we are looking for every source we can to advance our conservation initiatives, and keeping it coordinated would be very 

helpful. So I would urge you just to talk to the Secretary about 

that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may on that point, at the 

same meeting with all the statewide farming stakeholders, they 

mentioned this program that you are referring to. But they said 

that it is so onerous for them to participate in that in the balance 

16

of choosing whether to do so, they choose not to have any Federal 

dollars. And so I would be happy to share with you and the Committee their insights as to how it might be less onerous, but still 

have, of course, all the safeguards you want to have and make sure 

it is appropriately invested. That might make it more productive. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, one of the things in the farm bill, we 

said ‘‘up to 5 percent.’’ Maybe it should be ‘‘not less than 5 percent.’’ And then try to get over some of the onerous paperwork. 

I also want to thank you, Senator Menendez, for mentioning the 

Fruit and Vegetable Program. It has been expanding around the 

country, but it needs to expand further. And you are right that by 

doing it this way, you get a lot of support that you might not otherwise get—school boards, families whose kids are in school. You just 

broaden the whole support structure out there. Plus with the recent Institute of Medicine report that just came out last week, basically saying here is what we ought to be doing with food in our 

schools adds more impetus to us to push ahead more aggressively 

in that area, I think. So I thank you for mentioning that. 

Thank you all very much for your testimony. Governor Doyle, I 

look forward, again, to getting any suggestions about how we can 

work more cooperatively with State governments. 

Governor Doyle. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thanks, Governor Doyle. 

OK. We have Mr. Olin Sims, Mr. Ferd Hoefner, Mr. John Hansen, Ms. Julie Sibbing, and Mr. Bob Harrington on the second 

panel. 

Again, as with the last panel, your statements will be made a 

part of the record in their entirety. I will ask you to keep your comments to 5 minutes so we can have a discussion and questions. 

We will start with Mr. Olin Sims, President of the National Association of Conservation Districts, first became involved in 1987 

when he became a rural supervisor for the Medicine Bow Conservation District. He has served as area director since 1996. He served 

for 5 years on the NACD board and for 6 years as President of the 

Wyoming Association of Conservation District. He and his family 

operate the Sims Cattle Company in Rock Creek Valley. 

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Sims, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF OLIN SIMS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICT, McFADDEN, WYOMING 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you 

very much. As you said, my name is Olin Sims, President of the 

National Association of Conservation Districts, a rancher from 

McFadden, Wyoming, and my family operates a 700–cow/calf operation on 22,000 acres of private, State, and deeded Federal leases 

in Wyoming. 

The 2002 farm bill assisted producers across the country in many 

ways, but in my area of the country, the conservation programs are 

the farm bill. My access to farm bill programs and assistance has 

been limited to conservation programs only. 

My family has utilized conservation program assistance for over 

40 years. These programs have helped us better manage our ecological resources by alleviating impacts to riparian areas, better 

control of invasive species, addressing water quality issues, and alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35053.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
17

lowing us to better manage our rangeland resources to lessen the 

chances of overgrazing. This is all done utilizing technical and financial assistance provided my local conservation district and the 

USDA NRCS. 

Across the United States, nearly 3,000 conservation districts are 

helping local people to conserve land, water, forest, wildlife, and related natural resources. NACD believes that every acre counts in 

the adoption of conservation practices. We support voluntary, incentive-based programs that provide a range of options providing 

both financial and technical assistance to help landowners manage 

our natural resources. 

Mr. Chairman, my comments today on the Conservation Title are 

based on the recommendations approved by our Board of Directors, 

which includes one member from every State and the U.S. Territories. Conservation districts have a unique role in conservation 

program delivery. Our members work with landowners and State 

and Federal agencies to help deliver the technical assistance, all 

part of the locally led process that we support. 

NACD’s recommendations focus on a priority for working lands 

conservation programs. We believe there should be consolidation 

and streamlining of these programs, making them easier for producers to understand, apply for, and easier for field office staff to 

administer. All working ag lands should be eligible for these programs—including non-industrial private forestlands, fruits and 

vegetables, livestock, row crops, and small production lands that 

may border urban areas. 

We recommend two working lands conservation programs: a 

modified EQIP and a streamlined CSP program. NACD recommends combining the program functions of the WHIP, the Forest Land Enhancement Program, the Ag Management Assistance 

Program, and the working land elements of the Grassland Reserve 

Program into the existing EQIP program. 

The existing CSP program should be modified into a top-level 

conservation program for the ‘‘best of the best’’ in natural resource 

protection. This upper-level program should have clearly defined 

criteria so producers can plan ahead and know what their requirements are to participate. 

NACD supports maintaining the two land retirement programs—

CRP and WRP. The CRP program should continue to focus on the 

special initiatives, continuous signups, and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs. CREPs have been very successful in 

leveraging State dollars, creating a partnership between the State 

and Federal Government for protection of specific local natural resources. 

The WRP program has been successful in restoring wetlands, resulting in improved water quality and wildlife habitat. 

NACD supports retaining the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 

Program and including elements of the Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program. The FRLPP has been very successful in the Northeast, 

and we need to continue to ensure that this program works in 

other parts of the country, includes forestlands, and works in coordination with State programs. 

The Conservation Technical Assistance Program, outside the authorization of the farm bill, is critical in assisting NRCS offices at 

18

the local level to work with districts, landowners, and State and 

local agencies to address local resource concerns. CTA assists by 

working with landowners and operators up until the point of entering into a farm bill conservation program contract. This assistance 

is critical. 

Technical assistance is utilized to work with landowners on conservation project design, layout, and implementation, and also 

helping landowners understand highly erodible land and the necessary compliance for participation in farm bill commodity programs. CTA is also critical when working with landowners that 

have smaller operations and not be your typical USDA program 

customer, but need assistance to prepare them for participation in 

conservation programs. 

Mr. Chairman, the 2002 farm bill was a hallmark for conservation in this country, and we hope the 2007 farm bill will maintain 

this commitment to conservation. Conservation districts believe 

that every acre counts from a conservation perspective and that the 

farm bill needs to bring its conservation benefits to all producers 

and all ag lands. It does not matter whether it is EQIP or CSP, 

WRP or CRP; on-the-ground results are what counts, and making 

sure that we have the vehicles to get those results in 2007 will be 

the principal measure of our success. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chambliss, members of the Committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I am more 

than willing to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sims can be found on page 146 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Mr. Sims, thank you very much for your 

statement. 

And now we will turn to Mr. Ferd Hoefner, Policy Director for 

the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. This coalition includes nonprofit organizations throughout the country that work directly with 

farmers and ranchers. Mr. Hoefner has been the group’s senior 

Washington, DC, representative since 1988. 

Mr. Hoefner, welcome again to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF FERD HOEFNER, POLICY DIRECTOR, 

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE COALITION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HOEFNER. Good afternoon, and thanks for the opportunity to 

testify. 

Let me start briefly by naming four out of our ten overarching, 

non-program-specific Conservation Title priorities. 

The first of those would be to reauthorize and update the Resource Conservation Act. Previous RCA appraisals have played 

major roles in subsequent Conservation Title policy decisionmaking, but the Act comes to an end in 2008 unless it is reauthorized by Congress in this farm bill. We suggest combining the RCA 

with the monitoring and evaluation provision that this Committee 

rightly added to the last farm bill and then funding that monitoring and evaluation component as a percentage of total spending 

for each conservation program, much like we do with technical assistance right now. 

Second, the last Conservation Title made important strides on 

better meeting the needs of beginning farmers and ranchers, and 

19

we think that should be expanded upon in the new bill to encourage the adoption of strong conservation systems that will last a 

lifetime. 

Third, as this Committee addresses a more robust set of energyrelated provisions, we believe sustainability criteria should be established to guide all farm bill conservation and energy programs. 

And, finally, we strongly encourage the adoption of an enhanced 

Partnership and Cooperation Initiative administered at the State 

level to support special projects that address local environmental 

and community development problems and opportunities. 

Turning to the major Working Lands Conservation Programs, let 

me begin with conservation compliance. Based on the recommendations of the GAO, the new farm bill should strengthen waiver 

guidelines and accountability to eliminate the abuse that was documented by GAO. In light of the fact that nearly half of all excessive 

erosion is now occurring on land not technically classified as highly 

erodible, compliance requirements should also be extended to all 

cropland eroding at excessive levels. 

And, finally, we strongly support the sodsaver provision which 

was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate in 2002. We suggest that 

the budget savings from this provision be reinvested into wetlands 

and grasslands restoration. 

With respect to the EQIP program, we think that steps can be 

taken to better coordinate EQIP with CSP. EQIP can help producers get ready for the higher level of conservation demanded by 

the CSP and should provide a ranking system priority precisely for 

that purpose. EQIP should also be modified to require that all 

funded projects promote significant progress toward the sustainability criteria for the resource concerns being addressed. This 

change would more closely align the two programs and facilitate 

enhanced coordination and improved delivery. 

To assist farmers and ranchers seeking to adopt more sustainable systems and to sell into higher-value markets, the new farm 

bill should make stewardship incentives for organic farming a priority, including both technical assistance and financial assistance. 

Our top priority for the new Conservation Title is to restore full 

funding and make program improvements to the Conservation Security Program. In its first 3 years, CSP has enrolled nearly 20,000 

farmers and 16 million acres in 281 watersheds across the country, 

securing over $2 billion in long-term commitments to excellence in 

land care. Great progress has been made, but the over $4 billion 

unfairly cut from the program and sharp constraints placed on 

every enrollment to date. 

The program is currently on a timeframe where producers would 

get a once-every-generation chance to enroll. That is simply untenable, so it is an inescapable core issue for the new farm bill to ensure that the program is available to farmers and ranchers on a 

regular and timely basis. We believe the environmental criteria for 

participation in CSP should be refined based on what we have 

learned in the first 3 years of the program. 

The eligibility standard for CSP participation should continue to 

set a very high stewardship level. We would also support codifying 

the current regulatory requirement that soil and water quality be 

addressed at all tiers of participation, and we would also support 

20

adding wildlife habitat as a mandatory resource concern at Tier II 

as well as the Tier III level. 

Initial CSP contracts should include new practices that are currently being shunted off administratively to the contract modification process. By moving them forward in time to the beginning of 

the contract, the process will be streamlined, and producers will 

have a clearer sense of the requirements and the rewards of participation. 

The CSP is the first conservation program to include energy conservation as a priority resource concern. We believe that it would 

also be an ideal framework for addressing emerging energy production and climate change issues. We are excited about the bill being 

developed by Senator Klobuchar and other members of this Committee in this regard. 

Turning quickly to the retirement programs, we are strong supporters of the Wetland Reserve Program and really urge the Committee to do whatever it takes to find funding to continue that program at at least 250,000 acres. Our written statement has a lot of 

recommendations related to the Conservation Reserve Program, 

but given the time I will leave those. 

Thanks for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoefner can be found on page 87 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoefner, for your 

statement. 

And now we turn to John Hansen, testifying on behalf of the National Farmers Union. Mr. Hansen is the President of the Nebraska Farmers Union and Secretary for the National Farmers 

Union, operating a diversified grain and livestock operation. 

Mr. Hansen, welcome again to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HANSEN, PRESIDENT, NEBRASKA FARMERS UNION, LINCOLN NEBRASKA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION 

Mr. HANSEN. Chairman Harkin, members of the Committee, Senator Chambliss, thank you for this opportunity to appear before 

you today. Thanks to the leadership of the Senate Agriculture 

Committee, the 2002 farm bill dramatically expanded the size and 

scope of conservation programs. As we developed the 2007 farm 

bill, it is appropriate that we build on programs that are working, 

modify programs that need improvement, combine programs, if appropriate, to reduce administrative costs, and, if necessary, look to 

build new programs where needed. 

If we want good resource management, we need good resource 

managers who have a conservation ethic, that believe in leaving 

our natural resources in better condition than we found them for 

future generations. In short, the key to good resource management 

depends on supporting our traditional system of family farm and 

ranch agriculture. 

The National Farmers Union has been a leader in supporting 

conservation programs. We support full funding for EQIP. We support permitting State technical committees to set EQIP priorities 

based on the resources needs of the various States. Furthermore, 

21

as we continue to expand conservation programs, we need to keep 

pace with additional administrative workloads involved by increasing and fully funding technical assistance. 

National Farmers Union supports fully funding the Conservation 

Security Program as long as producers have an adequate income 

safety net tied to the cost of production with a permanent disaster 

program. We support the current CRP cap of 39.2 million acres and 

additional funding to reflect the increases in land values, rental 

rates, and property taxes. 

We encourage efforts to further enhance and incent wildlife habitats in existing CRP acres. National Farmers Union supports a 

new initiative to increase a nationwide buffer strip program to protect fragile and vital waterways. The idea of this program is to 

incentivize producers to voluntarily plant permanent buffer strips 

next to rivers and streams that could be used for wildlife habitat, 

harvested for hay, used for biofuel feedstocks, to capture carbon, or 

whatever the landowners desires. This is a case of using an ounce 

of prevention to reduce the billions of dollars spent annually by 

local, State, and Federal Governments to deal with water quality 

problems created by non-point source pollution. 

Finally, I want to mention NFU’s new carbon credit program 

that is a voluntary, private sector-based program to financially reward ag producers for sequestering carbon into the soil while also 

practicing good conservation. In our first year, which began last 

October, NFU has enrolled over 1 million acres. The aggregated 

carbon from these acres will be marketed on the Chicago Climate 

Exchange this calendar year. The Chicago Climate Exchange pilot 

program has recently been expanded while also adding a new conservation practice. In addition to the current approved practices of 

no-till farming or planting of legumes or grasses on row crop acres, 

the establishment of woodlands, and methane recovery from livestock operations, there is a new rangeland management practice 

for intensive or rotational grazing on permanent pastures. We hope 

the conservation plans of the future include the opportunity to utilize the benefits of carbon sequestration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify, and I 

will do my best to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen can be found on page 76 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hansen. 

And now we turn to Julie Sibbing, Senior Program Manager, Agriculture and Wetlands Policy, for the National Wildlife Federation. 

She is here representing the National Wildlife Federation and this 

Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group, and it includes 16 of the 

country’s foremost wildlife and conservation organizations. 

Ms. Sibbing, welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE SIBBING, SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER 

FOR AGRICULTURE AND WETLANDS POLICY, NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. SIBBING. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Senator Chambliss, members of the Committee. I am really gratified 

for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of not only the NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35053.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
22

tional Wildlife Federation but the Agriculture and Wildlife Working 

Group. 

As Senator Harkin said, the Agriculture and Wildlife Working 

Group has worked together over the last 2 years. It is a partnership of 16 of the country’s leading hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations. There is a full list in my written testimony. 

We have set out to decide what the goals and recommendations 

for the future of ag conservation programs are over the past 2 

years. Our group’s consensus set of recommendations were published recently in a report entitled ‘‘Growing Conservation in the 

Farm Bill.’’ I am entering that publication into the record as part 

of my testimony today. 

This is an unprecedented collaboration for 16 large groups, collectively representing millions of conservation-minded citizens across 

the country. It has led to solid recommendations. Our groups feel 

strongly that the conservation programs provide substantial and 

broad benefits that justify their continuation and, indeed, expansion in the 2007 farm bill. I will attempt to briefly summarize some 

of our recommendations here today. 

The group believes that the Conservation Reserve Program has 

overwhelmingly proven its worth over the past 20 years ago. By 

often setting aside the marginal highly erodible lands, the CRP has 

resulted in 450 million tons per year of soil loss avoided. We have 

sequestered over 48 million tons of carbon and produced million of 

pheasants and ducks each year. The Ag and Wildlife Working 

Group recommends that the CRP be expanded to its originally intended 45 million acres. 

And just to point out, we do have a visual here that tries to make 

it a little bit more stark. We are not talking about taking lands out 

of corn production. We are talking about half of the soils in central 

South Dakota that are considered highly erodible are eroding right 

now at intolerable rates. And so we are talking about trying to put 

these things into protection under programs like the Conservation 

Reserve Program, and, indeed, the expansion is justified. 

The Wetlands Reserve Program has also provided excellent habitat for fish and wildlife, as well as increasing groundwater recharge, carbon sequestration, and treatment of polluted runoff. The 

program is also extremely popular with landowners. Right now 

there are at least three acres waiting to be enrolled for every acre 

that is enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program, and there is a 

backlog of over half a million acres. The Ag and Wildlife Working 

Group supports raising the WRP enrollment cap to 300,000 acres 

per year. 

The Grasslands Reserve Program has an enormous potential to 

help conserve one of America’s most endangered ecosystem, our native grasslands. The demand for the program quickly exceeded the 

cap. Though 900,000 acres were enrolled in the GRP program, 6.2 

million acres went unfunded in 2004. Thus, there is significant demand for this program. We suggest increasing the Grassland Reserve Program in the next farm bill to 2 million acres a year and 

focusing the land on large tracts of native grasslands and long-term 

easements. 

The Ag and Wildlife Working Group also supports a gradual increase in the Wildlife Habitats Incentive Program, ramping up 

23

from $100 million to $300 million over the course of the 2007 farm 

bill. We would ask that a significant portion of the new funding be 

dedicated to aquatic restoration, including instream habitat improvement projects. 

The Ag and Wildlife Working Group notes that programs to assist forest owners in managing their land and keeping their land 

and forest cover are quite small compared to the actual need for 

such assistance. We support increased technical assistance, education, and outreach to forest through existing programs such as 

the Forest Stewardship Program and others that provide funding 

for cost-sharing of forest management practices. We also support 

the increased funding for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. 

The group also supports reauthorization of the Conservation Security Program, and we would ask that improvements be made to 

ensure that the program provides increased, measurable, and consistent benefits for fish and wildlife conservation. The CSP should 

enhance other USDA conservation programs and not be used to replace or reduce their funding. 

The current ag safety net provides substantial price support and 

risk protection to crop producers which make crop production possible, even where yields are consistently poor. The Ag and Wildlife 

Working Group supports a sodsaver provision in the 2007 farm bill 

that would deny benefits for new lands brought into production, appropriately putting the risk of breaking new land on the landowner 

himself. 

The group supports the development of a voluntary public access 

provision for conservation lands, both through funding of Statemanaged voluntary access programs and through granting a higher 

enrollment priority to conservation program applicants willing to 

include a public access component to their applications. 

While the Ag and Wildlife Working Group supports research and 

development funding to promote the next generation of biofuels and 

renewable energy, we would like this to occur through the Energy 

Title and be based on sustainable polycultures. 

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the Ag and 

Wildlife Working Group, I want to thank you for the opportunity 

to share with you our collective desires for the future of conservation. We look forward to working with you to develop a strong Conservation Title that will help to meet the needs of both producers 

and for our soil, water, and wildlife resources. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sibbing can be found on page 

106 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Ms. Sibbing. 

And now our final witness is Mr. Bob Harrington. Since 2003, he 

has been a State forester in Montana. He is here today representing the National Association of State Foresters, which includes the directors of all 50 State forestry agencies. 

Mr. Harrington, welcome. Please proceed. 

24

STATEMENT OF BOB HARRINGTON, STATE FORESTER, MISSOULA, MONTANA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of 

the Committee. As you said, my name is Bob Harrington. I am 

thrilled to be here and traveled from Big Sky country to testify before you on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters. 

And I am here primarily to ensure and to make the case that forestry remains a vital part of the farm bill. 

Montana family forest landowners and private forest landowners 

are caught in the middle of three primary forestry issues that are 

facing private forest landowners across the country. First is the 

health and the sustainability of the management of their 

forestlands. Climate change and natural events such as disasters—

natural disasters, wildfires, insect and disease infestations, as well 

as the tremendously devastating hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast 

a few years ago—have all formed somewhat of a perfect storm to 

present management challenges to those landowners. They are also 

watching as we increasingly see the divestiture of industrial 

forestlands across the country and conversion into real estate investment trusts as well as selling lands to timber investment management organizations. And they are also quite concerned about 

maintaining the forest industry that we do have in this country 

and ensuring that they have access to markets for the forest products off of their lands. 

Now, why are forests important to this farm bill? What is the 

compelling national interest of private forestlands to the development of the farm bill? We would make the argument to you that, 

first of all, one third of America is covered by forested land; 60 percent of those forests are privately owned, and there are tremendous 

public benefits that are derived from private forestlands, such as 

fiber in the form of wood not only for building our homes but for 

producing paper and other goods and supplies. Energy. We know 

that we have tremendous opportunity to utilize biomass not only 

for heat, energy, for the production of electricity, but also some encouraging developments in cellulosic ethanol. 

We know that a lot of the watersheds in this country are forested. They provide valuable wildlife habitat as well as access for 

recreation. And, as well, I think you should not lose sight of the 

fact that a tremendous number of your agricultural producers also 

have forestland on their property, and they benefit tremendously 

when times are lean in commodity prices and other things, to be 

able to utilize those wood products to help support their farm. We 

believe the farm bill has potential to help, and I would like to talk 

to you about a success story, a partnership between Montana Department of Natural Resources and the NRCS to use our State 

staff to deliver technical assistance to private forest landowners. 

Through this partnership we have funded State forestry staff to 

provide that technical assistance while they have access to EQIP 

funds to complete forest management projects on their property. 

EQIP has helped us to address the tremendous backlog in private 

landowners who are waiting for such assistance, and over 140 

projects have been completed on family forestland to address issues 

25

such as post-wildfire rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and 

thinning to improve forest health. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe I attached or I had distributed to you 

examples of the types of projects that we have funded in Montana 

with that. 

What are the keys to this success? First and foremost, we needed 

leadership and commitment from the NRCS State conservationists, 

and myself and our staff that we were going to work together to 

deliver these results to private forest landowner programs. We initiated and signed a memorandum of understanding as well as 

agreement on cost reimbursement to both our agency as well as the 

private forest landowners. And we have each participated on technical committees, such as the State Technical Committee for the 

NRCS, and the NCRS is represented on our State Forest Stewardship Committee. The problem is this success story is only occurring 

in a handful of States. The vast majority of my counterparts have 

told me that they have been frustrated acquiring access to the 

EQIP program in their States. 

So what can you do? First and foremost, you can expand authorities for forestry in the farm bill. You can provide clear direction in 

the managers’ report on congressional intent. You can hold agencies accountable for forestry assistance accomplishments to private 

forest landowners. 

We have talked to your staff, and we have reviewed different proposals to combine redundant programs, and we are certainly supportive of that effort provided that we can be sure that forestry 

programs and private forest landowners continue to have access to 

those programs. 

So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage you to 

strengthen the forestry language in the 2007 farm bill, utilize State 

forest stewardship programs and forest landscape assessments to 

market and focus NRCS cost-share programs, ensure the NRCS 

and other USDA agencies will promote cooperative relationships 

with State forestry agencies, and, last but not least, I would like 

to encourage you to ensure the capacity of State forestry agencies 

to deliver the private forest landowner programs and that they continue to be the primary delivery mechanism for private forest landowner assistance. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I am more than willing to answer any questions. 

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

83 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Harrington. Thank you 

all very much for your testimonies. I do not mean to single anyone 

out, but, Mr. Hoefner, thank you for a very comprehensive statement that I reviewed last night. It has a lot of good data and 

things, and I appreciate that. 

I will just start off with 5 minutes, and then I will yield to my 

colleague, Senator Chambliss. 

We have two things in conservation. We have the land retirement programs where we take land out of production. The Wetlands Reserve, and Conservation Reserve Programs protect wildlife 

habitat, clean water, fisheries, wild fowl, restore wetlands, that 

type of thing. A lot of these lands are erodible. We know that if 

26

they go into production, they are going to wind up in our rivers, 

our streams, our lakes. And so we have had a series of programs 

designed for these purposes. 

Then the other part of conservation is the conservation we want 

farmers to practice on working lands. After all, we are producing. 

I hope we continue to produce. And now we are going to be producing not just food and fiber but also for fuel. We are going to 

have a big demand, hopefully, Senator Lugar, for cellulose, and we 

are going to move very rapidly. And we want to move into cellulose, 

and we are going to try to address that in this farm bill also. 

Here is kind of a problem that we may have. You know, we cannot force anyone into conservation. These are voluntary programs. 

So CRP, for example, is a 10–year voluntary program, and farmers 

bid in land. Well, if I could divide it up this way, on the one hand, 

on the one part of CRP, you have what I call the ravines and gullies that are highly erodible, should never be cropped, and when 

those contracts come up, you can probably bid those in, and we can 

afford to pay those contracts. 

On the other end of the spectrum, there is some very level land, 

very flat, that is in CRP now. But because of high grain prices, 

there is no way that we are going to be able to afford to get those 

back in. 

In the middle of that, there are the hills. They are highly erodible. They are productive. You can produce some kind of crops on 

them, but they are highly erodible. 

Now, if a farmer sits down and pencils out and says, well, gee, 

you know, with the price of corn what it is, or beans what it is, 

gee, maybe I should just—I am not going to renew my contract. Or 

if I do, I am going to bid it in at such a high price there is no way 

we have the money for it. 

Now, with the demand that we are going to have for cellulose 

crops and for cellulose production in this country for energy, it 

seems that we might be able to have a win-win-win situation here. 

If a lot of this CRP land is coming out that might go into crop production, unless we can afford some way to keep it in—and I do not 

know if we have enough money to do that with the prices the way 

they are—what about if we looked at a situation where in this middle ground I am talking about, that middle part, you say to a farmer, OK, here is what we will do. If you sign up for 10 years, we 

will give you a reduced CRP payment, maybe a third of what you 

got before; then we will give you a CSP payment because we expect 

you to produce something on the land, and then you can produce 

a conserving crop on that land, an identifiable conserving crop such 

as a switchgrass, for example, or prairie grass, or alfalfa, or trees; 

crops that would be highly conserving in nature. Then the farmer 

could go ahead and sell that, market that. So the farmer gets three 

parts: he gets marketing, CSP, and CRP. And then maybe there 

would be enough money then to entice them into a long-term type 

of arrangement. 

I say that to you because you need to be thinking about this. We 

all want to increase—I have heard people want to increase CRP 

acres. Please tell me where we get the money. If you have suggestions where to get the funds, I am open for that. We want to enhance CSP, lid but that requires money. And WRP, we have no 

27

baseline in WRP. I just mentioned it in my opening statement, $2 

billion just to continue WRP. 

So we have got to be looking at ingenious ways by which we can 

enhance conservation and at the same time continue to produce, 

which we are going to do, but in a conserving manner. And so I 

am hopeful that you will take a look at how we combine some of 

these things and put them together to get the most for the dollar 

that we will put into it. 

If any of you have any response to what I just said, I would be 

glad to recognize you for that. Otherwise, I will go on and just 

leave that as a statement. Mr. Sims or Mr. Hoefner? 

Mr. SIMS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, you 

have laid out quite a scenario that is very real in front of all of us, 

and I think it is extremely important as we move forward. We have 

witnessed the benefits of the CRP program over the last several 

years, many years. 

Chairman HARKIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIMS. And we have also recognized the fact that with the 

new opportunities in agriculture, being able to produce energy 

crops, that we are seeing some acres that are going to halve and 

are going to come out of the CRP program. And that is a good thing 

as long as we make sure that we have a program available still, 

CRP program, to protect those most highly erodible, most environmentally sensitive lands. 

I think part of that plays back to the fact of the importance of 

the conservation technical assistance being available for those 

landowners, producers, to be able to go in and talk with their field 

office staff and make that decision whether it is worthy of pulling 

that land out of the program. Also, I think we can take that one 

step further and make sure that if there are lands pulled out of the 

CRP program to go into an energy crop, we need to be looking at 

comparing soil types to crops. Perhaps pulling a certain soil out for 

a row crop maybe is not such a good idea, but for a more grasstype, biomass-based crop might be more appropriate because those 

are not annually planted. They are more of a long-term type crop. 

So I guess I would offer that at this point. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, we thought about one thing, about getting land grant colleges around the country involved in having 

demonstration farms to demonstrate. What might be good in Wyoming is not good in Iowa, et cetera, et cetera. 

Did you have something, Mr. Hoefner? 

Mr. HOEFNER. Yes, just a few policy thoughts on that. 

One is you mentioned at the outset that there is land in CRP 

that should definitely remain there long term, and we are getting 

ready to put in a lot of that land for the third go-round. We think 

it is time to start talking about a voluntary long-term easement option within CRP to deal with some of that. So I would start with 

that. 

Another question that immediately comes to mind in this context 

is, What about compliance? You know, if we have good, effective 

enforcement of compliance, then that land that does come out of 

CRP will still have a level of protection. But we are very nervous 

right now that we do not have that level of compliance that we 

once did have. 

28

And then I would also mention that another really good option, 

for land that is coming out, would be to make sure that the landowner has the option of keeping in conservation buffers so that 

they can continue in the continuous signup even as part of the field 

then goes into some kind of energy crop production. 

So I would just throw out those ideas. 

Chairman HARKIN. Very good. 

Who else? Mr. Hansen, then Ms. Sibbing. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I think that one of the things that we have 

looked at in Nebraska—and it is, I think, a regional problem of significance that the Committee ought to think about as well—is the 

emerging problem of water-short areas in the West that are really 

struggling with how to deal with reduced irrigation and access to 

water. 

And so as we look at western Nebraska, eastern Colorado, northwestern Kansas, Wyoming, South Dakota, we are seeing some 

areas that really are struggling with reduced water. And so one of 

the things that we have thought about in trying to modify the CRP 

program in a fashion that would be a shorter-term CRP program 

that would be geared toward transitioning traditional row crop into 

grasslands and biofuel, cellulosic-based type production, and that 

that seems to make a good transition, makes good sense in terms 

of trying to respond to the economic problems. And in our State, 

we are getting—EQIP, we are getting twice the requests as we 

have money, but in the case of all the water-conserving programs, 

we are getting about 4.5 times right now the amount of requests 

as we have funding. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you. 

Does anyone else have a comment on what I just said? Ms. 

Sibbing. 

Ms. SIBBING. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. We are aware that 

CRP is coming under intense pressure for corn ethanol, and many 

people are going to be weighing their options whether to come out 

or not. It will not be a purely economic decision in all cases, as 

some people have developed a tradition of hunting on those lands 

and do appreciate the pheasants they produce, et cetera. 

The wildlife community is pretty unanimous in not supporting 

the use of CRP for this purpose. We think that the purposes of soil, 

water, and wildlife are incompatible with biofuels production. The 

National Wildlife Federation has, though, promoted a program that 

I believe Ducks Unlimited is also supports that would create an 

Energy Title program that would be specific to production of 

biofuels——

Chairman HARKIN. Ms. Sibbing, I hate to interrupt you, but if 

CRP land is going to come out, we cannot force anyone to stay in 

the CRP program. 

Ms. SIBBING. Right. We appreciate that. 

Chairman HARKIN. So it seems to me that——

Ms. SIBBING. If it comes out——

Chairman HARKIN [continuing]. If you can grow a conserving 

crop on it that provides wildlife cover, it seems to me that is better 

than the other possibility. 

Ms. SIBBING. No. That is why we would offer enrollment in this 

new program for those that are coming out of CRP. However, the 

29

nature of biofuels is such that we are going to have to have a 

200,000–, 250,000–acre area in a small 50–mile radius in order to 

service some type of facility. So it is not all going to be CRP. We 

would like to look at taking land from CRP that is coming out as 

well as other marginal lands and other lands that landowners are 

willing to put into, but giving it a full start and heading at energy 

as the production purpose. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you all very much. I have taken more 

than my amount of time. 

Senator Chambliss? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Harrington, I was in southeast Georgia yesterday. We have 

a forest fire burning down there that looks like, if something does 

not happen, we are going to exceed burning of 100,000 acres in the 

southeast part of our State. And I was particularly impressed by 

the job that Alan Dozier, who is our chief firefighter at the Georgia 

Forestry Commission, is doing. 

The one thing that really impressed me about the great job that 

is being done down there or in addition to the great job that is 

being done down there is the cooperation and the assistance that 

we have had from our surrounding States. I do not think we had 

anybody from Montana, but I am satisfied if we do not, the only 

reason we have not is because we have not called you. 

You folks have a great brotherhood and a cooperative spirit that 

is unlike anything I had ever seen before, and I just want to commend your organization and ask you to pass on our great thanks 

from the southeastern part of our State for the great work that 

firefighters are doing from all over the country to help us solve that 

problem down there. 

Interestingly enough, we talk a lot about forest management and 

what we can do to prevent forest fires, but we do a pretty good job 

of managing forests in our area. We have done a lot of prescribed 

burning over the years in this part of the State, and yet it is so 

dry you just never know what is going to happen. And you guys 

have a very difficult job out there, and we appreciate you. 

Mr. Sims, the NACD supports combining the programmatic functions of the Working Lands Program and an expanded EQIP program. And I understand this would help make the programs easier 

to use for producers and to deliver for the agency, but there are 

many who believe consolidation will reduce or eliminate special 

purposes of these separate programs. 

What is your thought about this? 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chambliss, we certainly support 

the goals of each one of those individual programs, and we do not 

want to lose sight of those. OK? Our intent in what we offer to the 

Committee for consideration is streamlining the administrative 

side of it so it is easier for the producers to get in the door, to get 

access to the program, and easier for the field office staff to deliver 

those programs. Our intent is to simplify that process, not to lose 

the goal, not to lose sight of the intent of those programs, and certainly want to hold out, you know, the historical funding that has 

been available in the 2002 farm bill for each one of those programs, 

we want to hold that intact, but it is more from the administrative 

30

side to make that easier for the producers and easier for the field 

office staff to administer. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Hoefner, the Sustainable Ag Coalition 

has a slightly different position than NACD on the proposal to consolidate these programs. Do you believe the same benefits will be 

achieved if Congress directed USDA to consolidate administratively 

instead of actually consolidating the program? 

Mr. HOEFNER. We do, and I should state at the outset that we 

are not categorically against combining the programs, but we think 

that that is probably a tough political challenge. So what we are 

proposing is that the Committee give some directives to move toward combined application forms and contract paperwork forms, 

and also revive the idea that conservation planning can be a gateway to all the programs, whether it is working lands, retirement, 

easement, or whatever. I really think that that has a lot of merit 

to it—not that every applicant will go through that process, but for 

those who chose to, that once you develop that comprehensive conservation plan, it can then be tailored to the programs that make 

most sense to accomplish what the producer is trying to produce. 

So we think that would give you some streamlining of program delivery, and perhaps those people who go through that process and 

really develop a total resource management plan could get a bumpup in the rating system or in the payment schedule under various 

programs, and we could really encourage more producers to do 

that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Hansen, USDA has proposed to create 

a board to develop standards for agriculture to participate in the 

carbon credit trading program or other ecosystem service markets. 

What do you think of the proposal? Do you think more robust 

standards such as measurement and verification protocols are 

needed? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, Senator, the Chicago Climate Exchange is a 

market-based, private sector entity that has to date created the 

framework and the program standards under which the programs 

that organizations like mine aggregate carbon and sell the aggregated carbon. And so we have not seen anything to date that would 

tell us that those standards are not good standards, that they are 

not being enforced. They have a protocol relative to enforcement, 

and they do field inspections, and that is part of how they operate, 

and so they have been in our view fairly, we think appropriately 

cautious in developing standards in expanding programs, making 

sure that they are able to chew, if you will, what they have bit off 

before, before they expand. And so we have not seen, in my view, 

a problem yet that would indicate that there needs to be a remedy. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I thought your concept you talked about in 

your opening statement was interesting. Are you operating this as 

sort of a co-op of farmers where you are aggregating the product 

you have to sell to the exchange? 

Mr. HANSEN. The initial program was initiated by the North Dakota Farmers Union, who operated it for about a year in terms of 

aggregating carbon in the State of North Dakota, and then about 

9 months into that program, the National Farmers Union expanded 

that program by authorizing all of the Farmers Union State organizations across the country to participate in that as aggregators. 

31

And North Dakota continues to administer the program, so we 

have an efficiency and a consistency in administration. So North 

Dakota actually carries out the aggregation and the paperwork. 

And so we are basically marketers, make the information available 

to producers, and then they are able to go through the Internet 

with a complete Internet access signup. So we keep administrative 

costs to a minimum. 

We follow the same standards as do all other aggregators, and 

all of the enforcement, for example, of the standards is done by the 

Chicago Climate Exchange. If that answers your question. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ms. Sibbing, the Agriculture and Wildlife 

Working Group is asking Congress to greatly extend conservation 

programs. As you will recall, the 2002 farm bill increased the Conservation Title by about 80 percent. We are in very difficult budget 

times right now, but being an avid outdoorsman, one who particularly loves to hunt and fish, from a top priority standpoint how 

would you categorize your needs relative to improving wildlife habitat, wildlife production? 

Ms. SIBBING. Well, we have not categorized our asks, but I would 

say that probably our top two asks are the Conservation Reserve 

Program and the Wetland Reserve Program, ensuring that those 

programs are continued and robust in the next farm bill. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. To all of you now, and we will start 

with you, Mr. Sims: Everybody wants to spend more money in conservation. I would love to spend more money in conservation. These 

are difficult budget times. Which title are we going to get the funding from to put into conservation, Mr. Sims? 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chambliss, thank you very much 

for that question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIMS. I appreciate being first on the panel to answer it. 

I will offer you this: The need and the demand for conservation 

assistance out there on the land has not decreased any. We have 

got excellent producers, stewardship, stewards of the land out there 

working right now. But based on the demands of society to have 

clean air, clean water, no soil erosion, the need for conservation 

programs is greater today than it probably ever has been. 

And so where do we go to cut? Sir, I cannot answer that question. I can offer to you that the need for the programs are critical, 

strong, strongly needed out there on the ground. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, and I should not have phrased the 

question the way I did. Let me rephrase it a little bit. You can answer again if you need to. But there may be ways that we can rework the Conservation Title, if you have any thoughts on that or 

there are some weak areas that you see that we can make stronger 

on programs that each of you have talked about. So I should not 

have said where do we get the money from, but if you have an 

ideas about reworking the Conservation Title, you might include 

that. 

Mr. Hoefner? 

Mr. HOEFNER. Well, I would just offer two thoughts. One, there 

are a few provisions that many of us support that do save money, 

one of them being the sodsaver provision that I mentioned in my 

statement, and I think Julie did in hers. That would save signifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35053.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
32

cant amounts of money that could then, you know, maybe help 

solve the WRP baseline problem. So I think we need to, you know, 

look at those kinds of options and then spend as smart as we can, 

given what we have. 

You know, the only other thought I have is that we want to work 

with you and the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee 

to make the reserve fund into something that is tangible and real 

so that these needs and opportunities can be addressed. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I think that Title I has a lot of the same problems and challenges that this title has in that they are seeing a 

lot fewer dollars available in order to accomplish the priorities of 

that title. And so, you know, we have tried in Title I to try to look 

at how you take the available dollars and come up with a more 

cost-effective and yet effective income safety net in that particular 

title. 

In this title, I think that having a background—having been a 

local public official from 1974 to 1990 in the conservation arena, to 

me you go back to the same things that you always do, which is 

to prioritize the needs of the resources and then as cost-effectively 

as possible try to put money for the highest resource needs first, 

and then spread that as far as you can. 

Well, one of the things that we found out in the current conservation program—and thanks to the 2002 farm bill—is that we 

found out that if you actually provide an effective carrot and an incentive to agricultural producers, they are, in fact, motivated to do 

that which needs to be done if you take away the financial barrier 

to being able to do it. And so we feel that we have to protect the 

income safety net of farmers first, so we are not inclined to steal 

from Title I. But we also believe that we constantly have to look 

for ways to get more bang for our buck and still spread more dollars over the resource base as we go forward. 

It is a tough decision, it is always a tough decision. But from my 

perspective in all the years I have been working in the conservation arena, it is very encouraging to note that producers are willing 

to do that which needs to be done when given the opportunity to 

do so. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ms. Sibbing? 

Ms. SIBBING. Well, I would add to Ferd’s comment that we are 

not yet giving up. We are working sincerely, all our groups, with 

the Budget Committee members and the leadership to point out 

the real substantive needs to fund energy in this next farm bill as 

well as conservation programs. So we are making that ask and 

working hard at that. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Senator Chambliss, first of all, I did not have 

a chance to thank you for your earlier comments about the response in Georgia to those wildfires. The State foresters as well as 

our cooperators both in local government and the Federal Government are quite proud of the efforts that are made by everyone to 

respond to fire seasons as they shift around the country. And I am 

sure hopeful that the same people are going to be available this 

summer, July and August, when the fires come to Montana. So, 

again, thank you for that. 

33

I am afraid I do not have a silver bullet either. I did mention earlier some cost efficiencies in utilizing existing staff and eliminating 

redundancies, an example of where we are using existing State forestry staff to deliver programs rather than to create additional staff 

to implement those in the case of forestry. And the other thing that 

comes to mind is this is not within the Conservation Title but 

something of great concern and importance to the State foresters, 

and that is the issue of fire borrowing—paying the U.S. Forest 

Service fire suppression costs out of the agency’s budget. I think, 

Mr. Chairman, when you led off with this hearing, you discussed 

how this Nation historically has not and should not pay for disasters out of agency budgets or out of programs, and yet that is exactly what is going on with the U.S. Forest Service budget. This 

year it is projected that fire suppression costs will comprise approximately 42 percent of that agency’s budget just due to how that 

is calculated, and this is having all kinds of impacts, not only on 

State and private programs that we rely on in partnership with the 

Forest Service such as the Forest Stewardship Program, and really 

affecting the availability of monies for us to be able to fund some 

of those. 

They are within the Department of Agriculture, if we could figure that out, and there are significant savings there for conservation programs in the forestry programs at the very least that we 

work in. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HARKIN. Mr. Harrington, we specifically added forestry as an eligible land use to EQIP in the 2002 farm bill. Your 

State has had good experiences, from what you have said, in that. 

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere else. So what 

would you suggest we do in order to ensure forestry receives better 

treatment in EQIP? If you have specific suggestions on how we 

modify it, I would be happy to get that, either now or later. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. We could certainly provide you detailed comments on behalf of NASF, but first and foremost, I think it is difficult to legislate vision and innovation and commitment. We have 

benefited greatly from that in Montana on the part of the NRCS 

State conservationist and his staff. And I guess I have benefited as 

well from some visionary staff on my part. So this is a true partnership, but in those States where we are having difficulties, Mr. 

Chairman, I think it is simply a case of personalities and the cultures of individuals. And that is very difficult to legislate. 

What I think you can do and what I mentioned in my testimony 

is to provide clear direction in the managers’ report associated with 

this farm bill of the expectations and congressional intent for forestry accomplishments, and then through hearings with the leadership of the NRCS and other USDA agencies is to hold them accountable for accomplishments across the country, for forestry assistance to private forest landowners. And I think that is something that you can do. It is not necessarily something that you put 

in the title of the farm bill. But it is something that in your capacity of oversight of the executive branch, I think that you could hold 

them accountable and ask them why in the case of EQIP we have 

relatively few States, five or six States nationwide, where there is 

any kind of partnership whatsoever, and we have the vast majority 

34

of the States where forestry assistance is really not being made 

available for private forest landowners, either at the State technical committees level or at the local county committee level. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, again, if you have any specific things, 

let us know. 

Ms. Sibbing, I want to get back to the CRP thing. Look, I am not 

hung up on what anybody calls anything. Whether you call it energy reserve or modified conservation reserve, it does not bother 

me any. The problem is, again, that middle ground of CRP land. 

What happens to it? 

Now, again, you say, well, you want to put that in energy reserve. Fine with me. But, again, we are still going to have to provide some level of support that would equal what a farmer might 

anticipate getting out of row-cropping it with high-priced corn, for 

example, or high-priced beans. 

So there has got to be some combination of things there. We 

know we want it—we know some things. We want that land conserved. We want it in a conserving nature. So if it is going to be 

energy crops, then you want certain energy crops that are by their 

very nature conserving. Then you want the farmers who are growing those to do it in a conserving manner, so you want them to 

meet certain conservation practices. And then you hope that they 

would do it over some period of time. You would not want them 1 

year and, OK, the price of corn booms up, and they take it out the 

next year. You cannot have that. You want a longer period of time. 

So, again, I invite your thoughts and suggestions as to how we 

look at that vast amount of CRP land that can be coming out that 

we just simply will not have the money up front to bid in. But we 

are going to have to find some combination of things. 

I like the idea of an energy reserve. I mean, that is basically 

what we are talking about, and I just did not want to—but when 

you talk about expanding CRP to 45 million acres, does that include your bioenergy reserve that you ere talking about? 

Ms. SIBBING. No, sir, it does not. 

Chairman HARKIN. That is separate and apart from that? 

Ms. SIBBING. It is a separate program. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, please tell me where we get the money 

to expand to 45 million acres of CRP. We will be lucky to hang onto 

36 million acres. 

Ms. SIBBING. Well, sir, we would like to hang onto what we can 

of CRP. 

Chairman HARKIN. I would, too. 

Ms. SIBBING. But I think most critically we would like to hang 

onto the original purposes of the Conservation Reserve Program, 

and we are not opposed to taking land that is coming out of CRP 

and putting it into a biofuels reserve. The key here, I think, is to 

give it a new purpose in that program of producing energy and 

having some, you know, safeguards as you said, putting it into a 

resource-conserving crop and managing how that is handled and 

putting it into a longer term and giving them some support. 

We are aware that energy and alternative energy is one of the 

top priorities of Congress right now, and we would like to see that 

reserve fund really dedicated to energy because we think it does 

deserve support in this farm bill. 

35

Chairman HARKIN. Well, as I have said many times—and I keep 

saying it—we have a chicken-and-egg situation here. We want to 

get private investment into cellulosic plants, but you cannot get 

that now because investors are saying: Well, where is the feedstock? You want to get farmers to produce cellulose material, and 

they are asking the question: Where is the market? So you have 

got to get them both going, but there has to be incentives in there 

for farmers to do this. 

Ms. SIBBING. Oh, we agree. 

Chairman HARKIN. And that is why we have to think kind of creatively about how we build a system that is not just all Government but is also market-driven, also, and get the market forces 

working—maybe not up front, but as time goes on, more and more 

of the market will take over, like it has in corn ethanol. We do not 

need to support corn ethanol now. It has got quite a good market 

out there. It is doing quite well on its own. But we do to get cellulose started. 

Mr. Hoefner, I wanted to ask you one question. You advocate reducing the maximum amount a producer can receive from EQIP 

over a 5–year period to $100,000. If I am not mistaken, now it is 

$450,000. That is a big reduction. What would be the effect of that? 

What would happen if you did that? I mean, who would it affect? 

It is going to affect somebody. 

Mr. HOEFNER. Well, I think the way to look at that is from the 

standpoint of where did EQIP start. I mean, when it started in between 1996 and 2002, the payment cap was $50,000, so $100,000 

would be double what it was just a few years ago. You know, in 

our view, unfortunately, that payment cap was raised ninefold in 

the last farm bill. It is one of those distribution questions where 

it is actually kind of typical. It is a small percentage of the producers and a much larger percentage of the total money. We cannot 

sit here and tell you exactly what those numbers are, unfortunately, because the Department of Agriculture does not collect the 

numbers in a way that you can give an intelligent response. However, the best guess I can give you is it is about 2 percent—people 

who would be over $100,000 would be about 2 percent of the participants, and roughly 15 to 20 percent of the total funds. 

In the context of a program where two out of every three farmers 

are getting turned away because there is not enough money, we 

would simply raise the question: Is it equitable for some people to 

get $450,000 when the average payment is $15,000? We do not 

think so. We think we can spread that money around much better 

with a reasonable payment cap that would still be twice what it 

was in the 1996 through 2002 period. 

Chairman HARKIN. Let me just say to all of you, I thank you very 

much for your testimony, more than that just for your strong work 

in conservation. But like Senator Chambliss said, you know, we 

have got a lot of competing demands in this farm bill, and our 

baseline is not good compared to what it was 5 years ago. I wish 

we had that baseline at a time when more and more demands are 

going to be made. So there are going to be some real, I think, battles ahead on how that is allocated and where it goes. 

So for those who are interested in conservation, you are going to 

have to battle for every penny and build the constituencies that are 

36

necessary for this. Unless we can get a better allocation somehow—

I do not know. We have got—we still do not have our budget numbers, but we are supposed to have this $20 billion reserve fund, 

which does not mean anything unless you get the money. It is not 

like they are giving us $20 billion. It is only if we offset it someplace. And good luck on that one under PAYGO rules. 

So we do have to—I think we will try to see what we can get 

from different—the Finance Committee and others. I just do not 

know what we can get, and it does not look too good. 

I do think, however, that as various things array themselves in 

this bill, I think we have to ask whether or not the money that we 

have and the pot that we have is being allocated fairly, equitably, 

and to meet the emerging national interests of this country. So we 

have to think about that. We have to think where are those big 

pots of money that we have, whether it is in Title I or wherever, 

and ask the questions: Is that money going out fairly, equitably, 

serving a defined national purpose? Or are we just doing things because that is the way we have always done them? And who benefits 

from that? And we have to be maybe thinking anew about how we 

allocate all this money out there. 

But having said that, I mean, powerful forces are arrayed to 

make sure that whatever I am getting now I continue to get, or I 

get more, if you see what I mean. 

So those of you who are interested in conservation, I agree, we 

need to do more in conservation. I think there is a national need. 

I think there is a national payoff for it. I think it can be coupled 

with bioenergy where we can begin to produce more energy crops, 

and at the same time have good conservation. And we can still 

meet our food and feed needs with our row crops and our storable 

commodities. 

But that is going to require, as I said, the input from all of you 

and to make sure that we continue to hear from you as this farm 

bill is developed. When we did the Conservation Title in the 2002 

farm bill, we had support. I am not saying we did not have support. 

But I remember it well. I sat in this chair at that time, and I remember the battles, not only in this Committee but on the floor 

and in conference. What we wound up with is not what we started 

with, and even with that big increase. 

But I just, again, urge you and through your associations and 

other things to make sure you build the constituency so that people 

here in the Senate and in the House know that, as I said in 2002 

and I keep saying, conservation ought to be viewed as a commodity, 

ought to be treated the same as a commodity. That is why the CSP 

program is an uncapped entitlement program, just like every commodity program. Treat it like a commodity. It has an inherent 

value. It defines—within it, encompasses national security and the 

well-being of the people of this country. So it ought to be viewed 

not just as a stepchild of agriculture but as something integral to 

all of our programs. So I hope that you will continue to give us the 

benefit of your input on this. 

I have no more questions. With that, I thank you all very much, 

and the Committee will stand adjourned until May the 9th. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 1, 2007

38


35053.001
39


35053.002
40


35053.003
41


35053.004
42


35053.005
43


35053.006
44


35053.007
45


35053.008
46


35053.009
47


35053.010
48


35053.011
49


35053.012
50


35053.013
51


35053.014
52


35053.015
53


35053.016
54


35053.017
55


35053.018
56


35053.019
57


35053.020
58


35053.021
59


35053.022
60


35053.023
61


35053.024
62


35053.025
63


35053.026
64


35053.027
65


35053.028
66


35053.029
67


35053.030
68


35053.031
69


35053.032
70


35053.033
71


35053.034
72


35053.035
73


35053.036
74


35053.037
75


35053.038
76


35053.039
77


35053.040
78


35053.041
79


35053.042
80


35053.043
81


35053.044
82


35053.045
83


35053.046
84


35053.047
85


35053.048
86


35053.049
87


35053.050
88


35053.051
89


35053.052
90


35053.053
91


35053.054
92


35053.055
93


35053.056
94


35053.057
95


35053.058
96


35053.059
97


35053.060
98


35053.061
99


35053.062
100


35053.063
101


35053.064
102


35053.065
103


35053.066
104


35053.067
105


35053.068
106


35053.069
107


35053.070
108


35053.071
109


35053.072
110


35053.073
111


35053.074
112


35053.075
113


35053.076
114


35053.077
115


35053.078
116


35053.079
117


35053.080
118


35053.081
119


35053.082
120


35053.083
121


35053.084
122


35053.085
123


35053.086
124


35053.087
125


35053.088
126


35053.089
127


35053.090
128


35053.091
129


35053.092
130


35053.093
131


35053.094
132


35053.095
133


35053.096
134


35053.097
135


35053.098
136


35053.099
137


35053.100
138


35053.101
139


35053.102
140


35053.103
141


35053.104
142


35053.105
143


35053.106
144


35053.107
145


35053.108
146


35053.109
147


35053.110
148


35053.111
149


35053.112
150


35053.113
151


35053.114
152


35053.115
(153)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MAY 1, 2007

154


35053.116
155


35053.117
156


35053.118
157


35053.119
158


35053.120
159


35053.121
160


35053.122
161


35053.123
162


35053.124
163


35053.125
164


35053.126
165


35053.127
166


35053.128
167


35053.129
168


35053.130
169


35053.131
170


35053.132
171


35053.133
172


35053.134
173


35053.135
174


35053.136
175


35053.137
176


35053.138
177


35053.139
178


35053.140
179


35053.141
180


35053.142
181


35053.143
182


35053.144
183


35053.145
184


35053.146
185


35053.147
186


35053.148
187


35053.149
188


35053.150
189


35053.151
190


35053.152
191


35053.153
192


35053.154
193


35053.155
194


35053.156
(195)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

MAY 1, 2007

196


35053.157
197


35053.158