[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 25 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1809-S1810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      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

[[Page S1810]]

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.

                          ____________________