Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Indeed, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is correct about the intent of the provision.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank you Senator Hollings. When Senator Hollings and Senator Inouye brought this matter to my attention, I welcomed their expertise in marine matters, and did my best to have the suggested technical amendment included. Regrettably, during the eleventh hour, it proved not to be possible. I hope, however, that this amendment may find another vehicle for its speedy passage.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct in his interpretation of that language and I wish to thank him for his assistance to the committee on this matter. There has been no stronger advocate of the Everglades through the years than the senior Senator from Florida.

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Wyden, where appropriate and within the jurisdiction of the Committees on which I serve, I will be happy to work with you in the pursuit of beneficial programs and funding for the Klamath Basin.

Mr. HARKIN. Even so, Senator Wyden, the $50,000,000 provided by this farm bill conference report for the Klamath Basin used under this program should benefit endangered species and the refuges in the Klamath Basin. Any program that improves water quality and quantity, as this one does, will necessarily support the recovery of threatened and endangered species.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I do.

Mr. HARKIN. Your dogged attention to the Klamath provision was critical and appreciated. I thank you for all your support in getting this important legislation off the Senate floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska both for his comments on the conference and for his question. His observation that fish are hatched rather than born is well taken, and I agree with the way he has rephrased the definition. It is indeed our intention that the definition of ``wild fish'' apply only to fish that spend the bulk of their lives in the wild. This differentiates them from ``farmed-raised fish,'' which are raised in confinement until they are harvested.

Mr. HARKIN. I supported retroactive eligibility for TAP and supported that provision in the bill that passed out of the committee. A majority of the Senate also supported this provision.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator informed me from the beginning that specialty crops like apples, cherries, blueberries, cherries, and asparagus are critically important for Michigan's agriculture economy. She has been a powerful advocate for specialty crops and I appreciated your hard work throughout this process to include them in this farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin for raising this important matter. I agree with his comments and am pleased that we are able to provide additional resources, through the farm bill, to assist States that did not receive funding for this year. I also hope that funding for States that successfully completed applications, and received insufficient funding, is increased. Clearly, there is a funding shortage for this program and I want to stress that the purpose of the $5 million in the farm bill is not meant to replace the CCC funds mentioned by my colleague, but rather to supplement them. I support my colleague in his efforts to ensure that no State or territory that wishes to participate in this program is turned away. The Seniors' Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides an important service, one that brings low-income senior citizens and local farmers together in a mutually beneficial relationship. tree assistance program

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his attention to this important issue. Section 2701 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 recognizes that technical assistance is an integral part of each conservation program. Therefore, technical assistance will be funded through the mandatory funding for each program provided by the bill. As a result, for directly funded programs, such as the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), funding for technical assistance will come from the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and will no longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act. For those programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), which involve enrollment based on acreage, the technical assistance funding will come from the annual program outlays apportioned by OMB--again, from the borrowing authority of the CCC. These programs, too, will no longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act. This legislation will provide the level of funding necessary to cover all technical assistance costs, including training; equipment; travel; education, evaluation and assessment, and whatever else is necessary to get the programs implemented.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Indiana for raising this issue, because it is an important one. The Section 11 cap prohibited expenditures by the Commodity Credit Corporation beyond the Fiscal Year 1995 level to reimburse other government entities for services. Unfortunately, in the 1996 farm bill, many conservation programs were unintentionally caught under the section 11 cap. As a result, during the past 6 years, conservation programs have had serious shortfalls in technical assistance. There was at least one stoppage of work on the Conservation Reserve Program. The Appropriations Committees have had to respond to the problem ad hoc by redirecting resources and providing emergency spending to deal with the problem. This has been a problem not just in my state of Iowa or in your states of Indiana and Mississippi; it has been a nationwide constraint on conservation.

Mr. HARKIN. Both gentlemen are correct. The programs directly funded by the CCC--EQIP, FPP, WHIP, and the CSP--as well as the acreage programs--CRP, WRP, and the GRP--include funding for technical assistance that comes out of the program funds. And this mandatory funding in now way affects the ongoing work of the NRCS Conservation Operations Program.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. In fact, the conference report includes specific language in section 2003 that establishes Partnerships and Cooperation, a program specifically intended to allow states like those in the Chesapeake Bay region--and the Chesapeake Bay is specifically mentioned--to submit innovative proposals which coordinate and implement all of the conservation programs in the bill to achieve priority conservation objectives. It is modeled in many ways on the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The language specifically provides that all the resources of the different conservation programs can be used, and indeed it provides that in addition to committing acres and resources from the different conservation programs to a special partnership, the Secretary has special flexibility with regard to 5 percent of the funds available for all conservation programs to use them for any activities authorized by any conservation programs. This bill will make on average $1.2 billion per year available for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program; any of these funds can be committed to a special partnership, and I think it would be reasonable and I would certainly be willing to work with the Senator from Maryland to encourage the Secretary to commit $20 million per year to the Chesapeake Bay region's innovative proposals to reduce nitrogen application using market-based strategies. Maryland is also specifically included in Section 2501, the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, making it eligible to share in at least $110 million to implement, among other things, resource conservation practices. Finally, the Senator from Maryland has my commitment and the commitment of the majority leader that we will work with him to address his concerns about the continuing loss of forestlands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by enhancing the support and resources of the U.S. Forest Service to the bay cleanup effort.

Mr. HARKIN. That is certainly my expectation. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his hard work on this provision in committee, and for his support of the changes we have made in the program. chesapeake bay

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Minnesota is again correct. The expectation is that USDA will extend edibility to a broad range of producer groups, including farmer and rancher cooperatives. Business ventures with majority control by producers many receive up to 10 percent of grants provided. Nonprofit organizations controlled by producers, whose mission includes working on behalf of producers, and who otherwise meet the eligibility criteria established by USDA, shall also be eligible for grants under this program.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. Yes, I believe that the changes we have made to this program will allow USDA to fund a wide variety of value added projects that benefit small and mid-sized producers as well as larger producers and organizations of producers. For example, we broadened the definition of ``value-added'' to insure that producers who add value to agricultural products by the manner in which they produce them may now apply for value-added grants to market their products. This is important, because many small and medium-sized farms have found that they can increase their profits and stay in business by converting their farms to organic and other types of higher-value production. It is clear that many consumers will pay more for products that are grown and produced in specific ways. This broadening of the value-added grants program will assist farmers or groups of farmers engaged in producing these kinds of high-value products in developing business plans and marketing their products, thereby contributing to the success of these kinds of ventures. I also expect that a large share of the grants will continue to be made to produce new non-food products, expanding the markets of corn, soybeans and other crops well beyond the market for foods. The bill also specifically allows for grants for on-farm renewable generation such as wind turbines.

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Lincoln is absolutely correct that the intent is not to exclude these non-profit groups that are actively involved in delivery of conservation programs. The work that non-profit organizations do under these conservation programs helps expand wildlife habitat and protect and improve all natural resources. This provision was not intended to limit participation by non-profit land trust groups or wildlife groups, like Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, or Pheasants Forever, or any other non-profit group that participates in the agricultural conservation programs.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Actually, they are not all competitive grant programs. CSP is open to all producers who qualify. However, I do look forward to working with the Senator and others concerned about the Chesapeake Bay on this issue. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, my neighbor to the west.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, and I ask unanimous consent that after her remarks, the Senator from Mississippi be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes off the Senator's time to Senator Voinovich.

Mr. HARKIN. We have had the hearings. We just need to mark it up.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield some time from Senator Lugar's time to Senator Voinovich in a moment. I thank the Senator from Montana, first, for being a valuable member of our Agriculture Committee, and thank him for all of his hard work and his input in developing this farm bill. The Senator from Montana is correct. He did succeed in putting in in the committee this emergency funding which not only helped Montana but all these other parts of the country. We kept it here in the Senate. We went to conference, but we were told in the conference that both the administration and the House opposed it in the farm bill. So, therefore, we were not able to keep it as we came out of conference. We were told that if we were to come up with an emergency package, that would be different, that they would support that outside of the regular farm bill. I assure the Senator from Montana, as soon as this farm bill is over with, that as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I will try to bring our committee together, hopefully, as early as next week, to, once again, mark up an emergency disaster relief bill and to get it on the floor as soon as possible. The Senator from Montana is right. When we have a hurricane that hits Florida, if we have a tornado that hits Oklahoma or Iowa, we come in with emergency disaster assistance. The drought that hit these areas of the country that the Senator from Montana spoke about is the same as a hurricane, tornado, or fire. It is a disaster that we, as a nation, should respond to with emergency funding. I assure the Senator from Montana, we are going to do everything we can to make sure we do that.