[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2436. A bill to amend title 1 of the United States Code to clarify 
the effect and application of legislation; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


       clarification of the application and effect of legislation

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an act to 
clarify the application and effects of legislation in order to reduce 
uncertainty and confusion which is often caused by congressional 
enactments. This act would provide that unless future legislation 
specified otherwise, new enactments would be applied prospectively, 
would not create private rights of action, and would not preempt 
existing State or Federal law. This would significantly reduce 
unnecessary litigation and court costs, and would benefit both the 
public and the judicial system.
  The purpose of this legislation is quite simple. Many congressional 
enactments do not expressly state whether the legislation is to be 
applied retroactively, whether it creates private rights of action, or 
whether it preempts existing law. The failure or inability of the 
Congress to address these issues in each piece of legislation results 
in unnecessary confusion and litigation and contributes to the high 
cost of litigation in this country.
  In the absence of action by the Congress on these critical threshold 
questions of retroactively, private rights of action and preemption, 
the outcome is left up to the courts. The courts are frequently 
required to resolve these matters without any guidance from the 
legislation itself. Although these issues are generally raised early in 
the litigation, a decision that the litigation can proceed generally 
cannot be appealed until the end of the case. If the appellate court 
eventually rules that one of these issues should have prevented the 
trial, the litigants have been put to substantial burden and 
unnecessary expense which could have been avoided.
  Trial courts around the country often reach conflicting and 
inconsistent results on these issues, as do appellat courts when the 
issues are appealed. As a result, many of these cases are eventually 
resolved by the Supreme Court. This problem was dramatically 
illustrated after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. District 
courts and courts of appeal all over this Nation were required to 
resolve whether the 1991 act should be applied retroactively, and the 
issue was ultimately considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. But by the 
time the Supreme Court resolved the issue in 1994, well over 100 lower 
courts had ruled on this question, and their decisions were split. 
Countless litigants across the country expended substantial resources 
debating this threshold procedural issue.
  In the same way, the issues of whether new legislation creates a 
private right of action or preempts State or Federal law are frequently 
presented in courts around the country, yielding expensive litigation 
and conflicting results.
  The bill I am introducing today would eliminate this problem by 
providing a preemption that, unless future legislation specifies 
otherwise, new legislation is not to be applied retroactively, does not 
create a private right of action, and does not preempt State or Federal 
law. Of course, my bill does not in any way restrict the Congress on 
these important issues. The Congress may override this presumption by 
simply so stating and referring to this act when it wishes legislation 
to be retroactive, create new private rights of action or preempt 
existing law.
  My act will eliminate uncertainty and provide rules which are 
applicable when the Congress fails to specify its position on these 
important issues in legislation it passes. Although it is difficult to 
obtain statistics on this issue one U.S. district judge in my State 
informs me that he spends up to 10 to 15 percent of his time on these 
issues. Regardless of the precise figure, it is clear that this 
legislation would serve litigants and our judicial system millions and 
millions of dollars by avoiding much uncertainty and litigation which 
currently exists over these issues.
  Mr. President, if we are truly concerned about reducing the costs of 
litigation and relieving the backlog of cases in our courts, we should 
help our judicial system to spend its limited resources, time and 
effort on resolving the merits of disputes, rather than deciding these 
preliminary matters.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 2437. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to extend, 
improve, increase flexibility, and increase conservation benefits of 
the conservation reserve program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


         the conservation reserve program extension act of 1994

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I introduce the Conservation Reserve 
Program Extension Act of 1994. I am pleased to be joined in offering 
this legislation by Senator Daschle who, as chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Agricultural Research, Conservation, Forestry and 
General Legislation, has worked tirelessly on this issue over the past 
several months and who will oversee the reauthorization of conservation 
programs in the 1995 farm bill. Senator Daschle and I are also members 
of the House-Senate CRP Working Group, a coalition of members focused 
on reauthorization of the program.
  Established in the 1985 farm bill, the Conservation Reserve Program 
[CRP] is one of the most popular programs ever offered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. Its objective, as stated in the 1985 farm 
bill, was ``to assist owners and operators of highly erodible cropland 
in conserving and improving the soil and water resources of their farms 
or ranches.''
  Several factors contributed to the creation of the program. The 
United States had accumulated large surpluses of agricultural 
commodities; commodity prices were extremely low; the agricultural 
economy was in a precipitous downturn; the cost of agricultural 
programs was increasing; and soil erosion was actually increasing in 
some areas of the country. Thus Congress decided to initiate a program 
that would reduce surplus commodities by retiring cropland, increase 
prices, boost producer income, and just as important, sharply reduce 
soil erosion.

  Although the program's goal of maintaining higher prices was not as 
measurable as producers in my State would have liked--a goal which is 
obviously affected by other factors--the program was well received and 
achieved positive results. Between 1986 and 1989, farmers were given 
nine opportunities to enroll land in the CRP, and they enrolled 33.9 
million acres. As a result, the program helped return normalcy to the 
agricultural sector. And, along with conservation compliance 
requirements of the 1985 Farm Bill, helped reduced soil erosion 
substantially.
  Conditions were different during the debate over the 1990 farm bill 
and the CRP was modified to meet those conditions. The CRP was 
broadened to include more environmentally sensitive lands. Bids were 
accepted on the basis of an environmental benefits index that measured 
the potential contribution to conservation and environmental program 
goals that the land would provide if enrolled. The seven goals included 
surface water quality improvement, potential ground water quality 
improvement, preservation of soil productivity, assistance to farmers 
most affected by conservation compliance, encouragement of tree 
planting, enrollment in hydrologic unit areas identified under the 
Water Quality Initiative, and enrollment in conservation priority areas 
established by Congress.
  These changes broadened the scope of the program, helping it achieve 
positive, measurable results. Although initially mandated to reach 40-
45 million acres, according to USDA's Economic Research Service the CRP 
now includes 36.4 million acres through 375,000 contractual agreements. 
This represents about 8 percent of total U.S. cropland. The CRP has 
reduced soil erosion by 700 million tons per year, a reduction of 22 
percent compared with conditions that existed prior to the program. In 
addition, the program has produced enormous benefits for wildlife, both 
game and non-game species. It is no surprise that reauthorization of 
the CRP is the primary legislative goal of nearly every wildlife 
organization.
  The CRP has had a significant impact on North Dakota agriculture. 
Consider the following statistics provided by USDA's Agriculture 
Stabilization and Conservation Service:

Number of bids...................................................26,600
Number of contracts..............................................18,520
Acres contracted..............................................3,180,569
Average rental rate.................................................$38
                                                       ________________

    Total annual rental....................................$121,998,974

  Commodity base acres involved include:

Wheat.........................................................1,138,046
Corn............................................................134,417
Barley..........................................................580,059
Oats............................................................263,683
Sorghum...........................................................1,837
                                                       ________________

    Total base acres..........................................2,118,042

  Total annual erosion reduction: 45,842,990 tons.
  The future of this program is central to the debate over the 1995 
farm bill in my State.
  The legislation we are introducing today represents Senator Daschle's 
and my effort to address the questions of participants in our States 
and many others who have concerns about the future of CRP: farm 
implement dealers, fertilizer and pesticide companies, local business 
people, lenders, conservationists, ranchers, hunters, and various other 
parties.

  Although the Secretary announced on August 24 to offer contract 
extensions to participants whose contract expires on September 30, 
1995, the various parties' concern over the long-term future of the 
program must still be addressed. In the meantime, the Secretary's 
announcement will help solve the immediate problem of contacts expiring 
before the 1995 farm bill becomes law.
  A much larger problem, however, is the budgetary baseline for CRP. 
The Congressional Budget Office assumes that contracts are not renewed 
as they expire. Thus there is no money in the baseline for contract 
extension.
  This is important for several reasons:
  First, environmental benefits will be lost. As I noted, the CRP 
provides outstanding improvements in water quality, soil quality, and 
wildlife habitat. A mistake was made once before in allowing a similar 
program, the Soil Bank, to expire. From 1956 to 1972, USDA managed the 
Soil Bank, to divert cropland from production in order to reduce 
inventories, and to establish and maintain protective vegetative cover 
on the land. In 1960, there were 28.7 million acres under contract. 
Although many forces were at work in ending the program such as 
commodity prices in the world market, by the mid-1970's most land had 
returned to crop production. Many of those acres are now enrolled in 
the CRP.
  Second, commodity prices will likely fall. As CRP contracts expire, 
several surveys have shown that a majority of farmers will return the 
land to production, increasing stocks and depressing prices. According 
to USDA's Economic Research Service, wheat prices would fall 9 percent; 
corn prices would fall 5 percent. Lower prices and increased acreage 
receiving payments would increase total deficiency payments 21 percent.
  Third, the debate over the 1995 farm bill could become an 
unnecessarily difficult, fight. Annual payments under the program are 
about $1.8 billion for the next several years. If we fail to extend the 
CRP but pressures to retain the environmental benefits persist through 
the farm bill debate--which they most assuredly will--some will look to 
farm programs as the likely source of funds. That is not a battle we 
should encourage. We have an opportunity to continue to improve the 
relationship between the agricultural and environmental communities by 
working together on the CRP. We should seize this opportunity.
  Fourth, the combination of lower prices and the loss of rental 
payments will have serious financial implications for producers and 
landowners in North Dakota and many other States.
  To the administration's credit, progress on the baseline is being 
made. On July 15, 1994, the Office of Management and Budget's 
midsession review included a 38 million acre CRP in their current 
services baseline. However, in August 2, 1994 testimony before the 
House Subcommittee on Environment, Credit, and Rural Development, the 
Congressional Budget Office indicated that they would not include the 
CRP adjustment in their baseline based on the OMB action. CBO indicated 
that they need a clear statement of policy regarding extension of 
current CRP contracts and action by USDA to begin implementing the 
stated policy. The purpose of the bill Senator Daschle and I am 
introducing today is to provide USDA direction in announcing such a 
policy, and to convey the interests of CRP participants in our States.
  The bill would accomplish the following:
  Require the Secretary of Agricutlure to offer current contract 
holders the option of renewing their current contract for 10 years upon 
expiration. Acreage not reenrolled would be required to follow a basic 
conservation plan.
  Require the Secretary to use a bidding system to enroll new acres 
into the CRP with cost-share assistance available for carrying out 
conservation measures and practices. Three criteria shall be used by 
USDA to determine new enrollment: water quality, soil quality, and 
wildlife habitat.
  By moving forward on such a policy, it is our belief that USDA will 
secure sufficient baseline to extend a valuable national resource. 
Again, the value of the CRP is undeniable. The benefits to society in 
improved water and soil quality and wildlife habitat are real and 
measurable. Let us not repeat the errors of the past when the Soil Bank 
was cavalierly eliminated.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2437

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Conservation Reserve Program 
     Extension Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830) et seq.) is amended by striking 
     ``1995'' each place it appears in section 1230(a), 
     subsections (a), (b)(3), and (d) of section 1231, and section 
     1232(c) and inserting ``2005''.

     SEC. 3. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF 
                   CONTRACT OFFERS.

       Paragraph (3) of section 1234(c) of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(c)(30) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) In determining the acceptability of contract offers, 
     the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) consider the extent that enrollment of the land that 
     is the subject of the contract offer would provide 
     environmental benefits, using criteria that, as determined by 
     the Secretary, give equal weight to improvement of soil 
     quality, improvement of water quality, and improvement of 
     wildlife habitat; and
       ``(B) establish different criteria in various States and 
     regions of the United States if, as determined by the 
     Secretary, the establishment of different criteria would 
     improve water quality or wildlife habitat or abate 
     erosion.''.

                          ____________________