[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S10367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Senator Kohl, as Senator Cochran read through the 
amendments included in the Managers package of the FY2000 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill late last night, I noticed that an amendment I had 
filed was not included. It had been my understanding that my amendment 
would be accepted during the wrap-up on the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. KOHL. I am aware of the Senator's amendment. Will the Senator 
please describe his amendment?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My amendment was a non-controversial sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that the U.S. Customs Service should, to the maximum 
extent practicable, conduct investigations into, and take such other 
actions as are necessary to prevent, the importation of ginseng 
products into the United States from foreign countries, including 
Canada and Asian countries, unless the importation is reported to the 
Service, as required under Federal law. It merely asks that current law 
be complied with.
  Mr. KOHL. Your amendment, expressing the sense-of-the-Senate 
regarding ginseng, was inadvertently left off the list for the 
Manager's amendment. However, it should be noted, that the amendment 
was not excluded based on its substance, but only because of a 
regrettable omission.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator and ask his assistance in including 
my ginseng amendment in the final conference report on the FY2000 
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  Mr. KOHL. I would like to assure Senator Feingold that I will work 
toward inclusion of this provision in the conference report. The 
Senator is correct that there was no objection raised to his amendment 
and I will make that point clear to my fellow conferees.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to engage the Senators from Wisconsin in 
this colloquy. Yesterday, when the Senate considered the Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill, I had offered three amendments regarding the 
Conservation Reserve Program. It is my understanding that at least one 
of these amendments had been cleared for approval until just prior to 
final passage of the bill, and that the Ranking Member and Chairman had 
been giving consideration to the remaining two amendments. However, the 
Department of Agriculture had expressed concerns and objections were 
raised.
  Mr. KOHL. That is correct. Will the Senator from Kansas describe his 
amendments?
  Mr. ROBERTS. The first amendment regarding CRP cross compliance is to 
address a problem we have had in Kansas. In many areas of the state, we 
have old homesteads that have long been abandoned. As time has passed 
these old homes have become dilapidated, rundown, and liability risks. 
Many producers want to remove these old homesteads and incorporate the 
land into their CRP land, conservation practices, or cropping 
rotations. But they are unable to do so due to CRP cross compliance 
rules. Under these rules, producers lose eligibility for CRP payments 
if they break Highly Erodible land (HEL) into production. Much of the 
land is considered HEL. Thus most of these homesteads sit on HEL land, 
and if they are removed, producers have violated the rules and lose 
payments. This does not seem to make sense and USDA agrees. USDA 
informed me that they planned to recommend to the Congress the 
elimination of this program in the next Farm Bill.
  The other two amendments involve notices regarding CRP Notices 327 
and 338 issued by the Farm Service agency last fall and this spring.
  CRP Notice-327 issued by the Farm Service Agency prohibits the use of 
CRP land for hunting preserves. The notice does not prohibit land 
owners from leasing hunting rights or charging access fees to hunters. 
However, it does prohibit hunting preserves. This notice overturns a 
practice that has been allowed in many areas since the inception of the 
CRP program. In fact, these hunting preserves operate from the Kansas 
and Oklahoma areas to the Dakotas. These preserves are strongly 
regulated in Kansas and they have resulted in an important economic 
development activity for many rural areas. In Kansas, we have 112 
tracts of land designated for use as hunting preserves. 36 of these 
tracts are in counties designated by USDA as eligible to apply for 
Round II Rural Empowerment zones under the criteria established by 
USDA. Basically, to qualify under this criteria, a county must have 
lost 15 percent or more of its population between 1980 and 1994. These 
population losses represent a significant erosion of the economic base 
of these rural areas. Disallowing these hunting preserves would 
represent a loss of tourism dollars and an economic hit that many of 
these counties simply cannot afford to take.
  CRP Notice 338 prohibits the planting of grass strips on terrace tops 
for enrollment in the continuous CRP. The notice prohibits the 
enrollment of grass strips located on the tops of terraces--where 
erosion is most likely to take place--but allows the enrollment of 
strips planted between terraces--where crops can actually be grown. 
Strips planted on terraces provide important environmental functions by 
reducing both wind and water erosion. Grass strips help to prevent the 
breakage of terraces that sometimes occurs during torrential rains and 
they provide important habitat for wildlife. Fifteen groups in Kansas 
ranging from the State Secretary of Agriculture to the Kansas Audubon 
Society have asked Secretary Glickman to reverse this ruling. USDA's 
actions seem directly aimed at a recent brochure prepared by these 15 
Kansas organizations that explains how landowners can use these grass 
strips to improve environmental and wildlife benefits. This amendment 
tries to return some aspect of local control to these decisions.
  I thank the ranking member for taking another look at these 
amendments, and I would ask the Ranking Member's assurance that he will 
work with his Chairman and House counterparts to address my amendments 
on the Conservation Reserve Program in conference as well.
  Mr. KOHL. I would like to assure the Senator from Kansas that I will 
work with Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, to make all 
members of the conference committee aware of the objectives of these 
three amendments. The Senator also has my assurance that I hope we can 
overcome any remaining objections to his amendment relating to CRP 
cross compliance. Further, I would like the Senator to know that I will 
continue discussions with all parties regarding his other two 
amendments to see if it will be possible to give them favorable 
consideration during conference committee action.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Ranking Member for his assistance and all 
his work on the bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to echo that sentiment and also thank 
Senator Kohl for his assistance and all his work on this very important 
bill.

                          ____________________