A Dialog with Defenders of Wildlife 
A Status Report

As of Saturday, September 1, 2001:

Here's where we now stand on the dialog to resolve issues raised by Defenders of Wildlife on the most recent proposal to revise HR 2646, Title II, Subtitle F, Sec. 256, "The Farmland Stewardship Program."

Mark Shaffer of Defenders of Wildlife left for a much-needed week of vacation on Friday, 8/31. Just before he left, Mark called. Other priorities intervened on Friday, which took his time and attention. So we have been unable to complete our discussions and come to consensus on the few remaining points that separate us.

Defenders raised seven issues. Of these, three have been successfully resolved -- Part 2 "Biofuels," Part 3 "State Level Administration," and Part 6 "Inclusion of Forest/Wildlife Organizations."

We are very close to consensus on two other issues - Part 4 "Payments" and Part 5 "State Agency Participation."

On Part 4 "Payments," the issues regarding paragraphs (B) and (C) of Sec. 1239B(f)(1) have been resolved, but we are still discussing paragraph (D). 

On Part 5 "State Agency Participation," we are still discussing how much "consulting" the state department of agriculture must perform with other agencies, if it is the "designated state agency" for this program. 

I personally believe that the language we currently have is sufficient, particularly when it is combined with the venues for input -- and additional consultation, collaboration and cooperation -- created through the Farmland Stewardship Council in Sec. 1239E, and through the emphasis in this section on role that is to be played by the State Technical Committees and Resource Advisory Committees in each state.

As yet, there is no resolution on Part 1 "Service Contracts" and Part 7 "State Block Grants." The discussions will continue in Mark's absence, with Frank Casey taking the lead for Defenders.

In the meantime, I must meet a deadline on submitting language for a manager's amendment to HR 2646. There is no guarantee that any language I submit will be used to make changes in HR 2646, but there is no chance at all to make adjustments if the language is not delivered on time.

So why continue discussions?

As Mark said, Defenders cannot support the current language in its entirety as it now stands, but he very much wants to continue our dialog and said that "we continue to be interested if issues regarding service contracts and block grants can be resolved to our satisfaction."

Also, Defenders does not support the bill -- HR 2646 -- for which I am submitting language.

With continued discussion, these issues may very well be resolved and the necessary revisions can be made in the Senate.

Further information on the dialog that has taken place to date can be found on this project website at Defenders Dialog.