House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Chairman Frank Lucas (OK-03) delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing: "Supporting Farmers, Strengthening Conservation, Sustaining Working Lands."
Remarks as prepared:
Good morning. Welcome to today’s Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be examining farm bill conservation programs and hearing from a distinguished panel of witnesses for their perspectives.
Title II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation programs that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of farmers, ranchers and rural communities. These programs have the dual benefit of supporting the producer and addressing pressing natural resource concerns at the local level.
As we have today’s discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss potential improvements, it is important that we have some context for why and how our system of farm conservation developed over many years. The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s and the actions that the Federal government took in response to the Dust Bowl.
In the Nineteenth century, the Homestead Act was enacted with the best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. When settlers came west in search of fertile land to farm, it didn’t take long for them to realize the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were susceptible to erosion when not protected by native vegetation. Coupled with severe drought conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14, 1935, a day that has come to be known as “Black Sunday.”
The dust storms were so severe that their effects were felt far beyond the Southern Great Plains, garnering the attention of lawmakers in Washington. Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt signed legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 1996, the agency administers most of the farm bill conservation programs and provides technical assistance for others administered by the Farm Service Agency.
Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for supporting agriculture and ensuring we don’t have another Dust Bowl again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both Black Sunday and the establishment of the now-named NRCS, today’s hearing is timely to hear more about these programs and how Congress may be able to further improve them.
We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm Bill and rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the current state of agriculture and the rural economy. This extends to conservation programs and reforms we can include to build on the progress we’ve made in recent farm bills.
Last year’s Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new funding for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it into Title II. The House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvests the unobligated IRA funding into the conservation title. Reallocating those dollars would increase the title’s baseline over the long term, making it a permanent investment into conservation programs. It also allows for continued support for the orphan programs, increased funding for successful programs like the Small Watershed Program, and the creation of a new forest easement program.
In addition to funding, last year’s bill placed an emphasis on science, technology and innovation. The bill makes precision agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share under EQIP and CSP; requires more frequent updates to conservation practice standards; and creates an office of innovation in the Office of the Secretary.
The bill streamlines RCPP; provides commonsense flexibilities for ACEP; and reforms the technical service provider program. The bill also proposes a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal lands by incorporating soil capability class into rental rates for general enrollment.
These are all welcomed changes intended to improve program administration and make them more producer friendly. Farm bill conservation programs have been so successful because they are voluntary, incentive-based and producer-first. The programs have also been so effective because they are locally led, which allows for the States and regions to determine the priority natural resource concerns.
As we think about the next farm bill, it’s important for us to keep all of this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective because of the flexibility built into them and because we have continually encouraged the locally led process to work. I’m proud of the work that this Committee has done over the past several farm bill cycles to improve the programs because we know that voluntary conservation works.
I’d like to welcome all of our witnesses today; and thank Ranking Member Tokuda for her partnership on this hearing. With that, I yield to the ranking member for any opening remarks she would like to provide.
