Good morning and welcome to everyone here. It is my pleasure to convene this first Washington hearing of the Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the witnesses for their time and efforts to make their views known to us on this important subject.
This hearing is to examine and discuss the Department of Agriculture's final rule implementing the Conservation Reserve Program. There are only a small few of us left on the Committee who were a part of the original debate authorizing the CRP in 1985. At that time, I was a freshman member of Congress. While we felt at the time that we were creating a good program, little did we know the actual degree of success that would result.
I have said for the last several years that the CRP is one of the best examples of a successful government program that produces tremendous public benefit through a public private partnership. Nationally, figures indicate that the CRP has saved 695 million tons of soil annually. In my hometown of Lubbock, Texas the benefits can be seen firsthand. I can recall just a few years ago before the inception of CRP times when the blowing dust would pile up like small snow drifts. A study was conducted a few years ago by Texas Tech University which shows a direct correlation between airborne dust levels as measured at the Lubbock International Airport and acres that went into CRP over the last several years. Sure there were other factors such as improvements in conservation farming practices but there is no doubt that the CRP has played a very large part in that reduction of dust.
I am sure many other Members could tell similar but different success stories about CRP from their regions of the country. One of the best assets of the CRP is the flexibility to address the unique conservation concerns of each region of the country. We want to ensure that that aspect of the program continues under these new guidelines.
As I am sure we will hear today, the CRP enjoys wide support from many different perspectives. Farmers benefit from the reduced erosion on their land which also benefits local residents in their area. Sportsmen benefit from the wildlife habitat established by CRP and environmentalists support the conservation benefits of the program as well. This wide support was clearly evident when the House voted to extend the program in the 1996 Farm Bill by a vote of 372-37.
However, I, as well as other Members of Congress, farmers and others have some very strong concerns that will be expressed today. First and foremost is timing. The language of the farm bill directed the Department to issue regulations for CRP by 90 days after enactment. That means July. But the Department missed that deadline by a few months and finally issued a proposed rule at the end of September last year. Now it is almost March and we are looking at a final rule and signup to begin in a couple of weeks. The Department now has an enormous job to complete in a short time period and it is very critical the schedule that they have set be strictly adhered to in order to let farmers know their options in time to make decisions about the future use of their land.
Many who have examined this rule have expressed frustration with its complexity. We realize that when the goal is to maximize the environmental benefit for the dollar expended, that cannot be accomplished through a simple and straightforward formula. I believe there are some very good attributes to the Environmental Benefits Index that the Department has established. I appreciate the recognition that soil erosion involves both wind and water erosion. I also appreciate the inclusion of a factor explicitly for air quality benefits. In addition, I appreciate the consistency between conservation compliance regulations and CRP eligibility which is provided in the final rule.
However, the complexity involved with this scoring process, coupled with the lateness of this rule, has led to much uncertainty and fear in the countryside. At our earlier hearing, officials of the Department stated that they do not expect any large regional shifts in the amount of land in CRP. However, we have always said that the devil is in the details. Now that the Department has had a chance to train local employees on the procedure for assigning points under the EBI we want to make sure that the actual comparative scoring of various types of land around the country results in a regional balance. From information I have received the last few days, I am increasingly concerned.
Again, I appreciate the time that our witnesses have taken to prepare their testimony and appear before the Subcommittee. I look forward to the testimony and the discussion.