The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S1809-S1810 on March 3, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last month, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the new rules and regulations on the Conservation Reserve Program in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We find that we are starting to take a program that has been claimed as one of the great success programs, as far as soil conservation, watershed management, wildlife habitat, in our respective States. There is no doubt about it, that we have land that was taken out of production that was marginal land, should never have been in row crop or crop production, should have been grass all those years, and we have noticed an increase, a notable increase in upland bird populations, also in white tail deer and other wildlife that depend on a habitat that the CRP would afford.
There has been a rule change, however. This was brought to our attention by our good friends and neighbors who are living and working on the grain farms of Montana, and especially in eastern Montana. The announcement by U.S. Department of Agriculture to start a sign up for an extension, or increased acreage received into the program going up to 220 million acres across this country. Now, it would look like the acreage is capped around 36.4 million acres, but there have been new rules made on about half of American cropland making it now eligible for CRP. It was brought up in this new announcement and the timing is flawed.
The new rules give the worst lands the lowest rate, the best lands the highest rate. So right now we have figures coming in from the different counties and it could be on dirt farms as low as $17 an acre. What happens when you get a bid to take lands out of production at $17 an acre--I do not care what you do on that land, it will produce more than $17 an acre. So, what is happening is that the good land is going into the CRP--in other words, taken out of production--and we will farm our worst land, having the exact opposite effect that was desired in the first place.
The process is a burden to participants if you have between now and this month of March to sign up. Just think, that has to go to the local level, whenever you make those arrangements, that application for CRP. It goes from the local board to the State board to the Federal board before it is approved back to the farmer. The farmer does not know what he will be planting or harvesting this year.
It could be June or July. In fact, the president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, Philip McClain, testified before the House Forestry Resource and Conservation and Research Subcommittee and expressed his concern that the USDA will not decide which offers being made by the growers during that March CRP signup will be accepted into most areas until June. Now, if it is July in our country--in other words, the winter wheat people are really put at a disadvantage if you are in the southern climes. In the northern climes, it is too late to plant a spring crop. The delayed signup really puts a hardship on wheat growers, no matter in which part of the country you farm--whether it's Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, or going on north to the Canadian border.
So the National Association of Wheat Growers, all at once over the weekend, has said, wait a minute here, we need immediate congressional action, maybe to recommend that we extend the present contracts, which expire this fall and which qualify for participation under the current eligibility criteria. I think that is a good recommendation. Even the USDA State staff feels that the problems that are associated with this program make a mockery of the intent of the program. It does not provide the original intent of why CRP was put in in the first place.
So I recommend to the Department of Agriculture--and they have time, I think, to look at this, and, if not, I think Congress should take a very serious look at it, because it is just not fair if you have a program that will work exactly the opposite from what was intended and put all the grain producers at a disadvantage. I suggest that the Secretary extend the current program for 1 year. Let's give it some time and take a look at it and try to get the desired results and rewrite the rules to reflect the intent of the program. The intent of the program was to take marginal land out of production so that we can manage watershed, we can manage soil erosion, we can manage wetlands, potholes, all of the environmental concerns that this country has. We can take a look at this, given more time to do it. Of course, these recommendations are supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers.
So with this in mind, with the good record of CRP, a program that has been highly successful in doing two things that were most desired in rural America, I think it is only right to extend those rules through the program this year. Let's look at it, and this time we might be able to get it right. Right now, we are extending some programs that would suggest exactly the opposite.
____________________
