[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16496-S16508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Grassley):
  S. 1373. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to minimize 
the regulatory burden on agricultural producers in the conservation of 
highly erodible land, wetland, and retired cropland, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           the agricultural resources enhancement act of 1995

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senators Dole, 
Grassley, and Craig today in introducing the Agricultural Resources 
Enhancement Act of 1995, which is our blueprint for the conservation 
title of the new farm bill. This legislation builds on agriculture's 
environmental successes over the past decade while also adding new 
flexibility for our farmers and ranchers as they enter the 21st 
century.
  In May I advanced several concepts to improve the Conservation 
Reserve Program, our conservation land retirement initiative. I also 
introduced the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which I am 
proud to note was included in the budget reconciliation bill approved 
by the Senate last week. Meanwhile, Senators Dole, Grassley, and Craig 
developed several concepts for the CRP and for the conservation 
compliance and swampbuster programs. The bill we are introducing today 
combines the best of our recommendations into a single strategy that 
will protect both the environment and the property rights of our 
Nation's agricultural producers.
  Our proposal improves the CRP by adding a new water quality emphasis 
and by targeting the program to the highly erodible land most in need 
of protection. There is land now in the CRP that can be brought back 
into production without harming the environment. At the same time, 
there is also valuable acreage not now in the reserve that deserves 
long-term protection. This legislation accomplishes both goals.
  This bill also makes much needed changes to the swampbuster 
compliance program, including an exemption for frequently cropped 
farmland. In the conservation compliance program, farmers would gain 
significant new flexibility to adopt soil-saving techniques. Our goal 
is to make both programs effective in preserving valuable resources and 
workable in the field.
  Finally, our legislation includes unprecedented provisions to improve 
wildlife habitat on agricultural lands. Frequently cropped wetlands 
would be eligible for the CRP. Habitat potential will be considered in 
evaluating offers to enroll land in the CRP and the Wetlands Reserve 
Program. Expiring water bank acres would be eligible for the WRP. And 
the Secretary is encouraged to maximize wildlife habitat benefits from 
all our conservation programs.
  My cosponsors and I represent a broad range of agricultural interests 
and have diverse regional backgrounds. As such, I am optimistic the 
provisions we have included in our bill will be embraced by a majority 
in the the Agriculture Committee and in the Senate as a whole. I look 
forward to working with all my colleagues in developing a new farm bill 
with provisions as meaningful for the environment as those in the 
landmark farm bill we passed a decade ago.
  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. 1373

       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 ``Agricultural Resources 
     Enhancement Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) restore respect for private property rights and the 
     productive capacity of the agricultural sector;
       (2) reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on farmers while 
     maintaining basic environmental objectives; and
       (3) recognize that conservation and environmental 
     objectives are best met with voluntary efforts.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1201(a) of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) 
     through (16) as paragraphs (3), (5), (6), (7), and (9) 
     through (19), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Alternative conservation system.--The term 
     `alternative conservation system' means a conservation system 
     that achieves a substantial reduction in soil erosion from 
     the level of erosion that existed prior to the application of 
     the conservation measures and practices provided for under 
     the system.'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(4) Conservation system.--The term `conservation system' 
     means the conservation measures and practices that are 
     approved for application by a producer to a highly erodible 
     field and that provide for cost effective and practical 
     erosion reduction on the field based on local resource 
     conditions and standards contained in the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service field office technical guide.'';
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (7) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(8) Frequently cropped agricultural land.--The term 
     `frequently cropped agricultural land' means agricultural 
     land that--
       ``(A) exhibits wetland characteristics, as determined by 
     the Secretary; and
       ``(B) has been used for 6 of the 10 years prior to January 
     1, 1996, for agricultural production on the field, as 
     determined by the Secretary, or production of an annual or 
     perennial agricultural crop (including forage production or 
     hay), an aquaculture product, a nursery product, or a wetland 
     crop.''; and
       (5) in paragraph (10) (as so redesignated), by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(C) Producer-initiated review of highly erodible land 
     designation.--A designation of highly erodible land on 
     agricultural land made under this title shall be valid until 
     an owner or operator requests a new designation. The 
     Secretary shall provide the designation on the request of the 
     owner or operator.
       ``(D) Science and technology.--A designation of highly 
     erodible land under this title may be based on the most 
     contemporary science, method, or technology, as determined by 
     the Secretary, for determining soil erodibility that 
     accurately reflects the potential for soil loss.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 363 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006e) is amended by striking 
     ``section 1201(a)(16) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3801(a)(16))'' and inserting ``section 1201(a) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801(a))''.
       (2) Section 1257(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``section 1201(4) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801(4))'' and inserting 
     ``section 1201(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3801(a))''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 1201(6) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801(6))'' and inserting 
     ``section 1201(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3801(a))''.

     SEC. 4. HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION.

       (a) Program Ineligibility.--Section 1211 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1211. PROGRAM INELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 1212 and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who 
     participates in an annual program under the Agricultural Act 
     of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) after January 1, 1996, and 
     who in any crop year after that date produces an agricultural 
     commodity on a field on which highly erodible land is 
     predominate, as determined by the Secretary, shall be--
       ``(1) in violation of this section; and
       ``(2) ineligible for loans or payments in an amount 
     determined by the Secretary to be proportionate to the 
     severity of the violation, taking into account the intent of 
     the person and the frequency of the violations.
       ``(b) Loans and Payments.--If a person has been determined 
     to have committed a violation during a crop year under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine which, and the 
     amount, of the following loans and payments for which the 
     person shall be ineligible:
       ``(1) Any type of price support or payment made available 
     under the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 
     et seq.), or any other Act.

[[Page S 16497]]

       ``(2) A farm storage facility loan made under section 4(h) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714b(h)).
       ``(3) A loan made, insured, or guaranteed under the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) or any other provision of law administered by the 
     Consolidated Farm Service Agency, if the Secretary determines 
     that the proceeds of the loan will be used for a purpose that 
     will contribute to excessive erosion of highly erodible land.
       ``(4) A payment under section 4 or 5 of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c) 
     during the crop year for the storage of an agricultural 
     commodity acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
       ``(5) During the crop year:
       ``(A) A payment under section 8, 12, or 16(b) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h, 
     590l, and 590p(b)).
       ``(B) A payment under section 401 or 402 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202).
       ``(C) A payment under subchapter B or C of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D.
       ``(D) A payment under chapter 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(E) A payment under chapter 3 of subtitle D.
       ``(F) A payment, loan, or other assistance under section 3 
     or 8 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1003 and 1006a).''.
       (b) Exemptions.--Section 1212 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3812) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``shall, if'' and 
     inserting ``shall--
       ``(A) be required to apply a conservation plan that is--
       ``(i)(I) based on and conforms to practices, technologies, 
     and schedules contained in a local Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service field office technical guide; or
       ``(II) based on an alternative conservation system that is 
     not described in the technical guide but is determined by the 
     Secretary to be an acceptable alternative;
       ``(ii) consistent with section 1214; and
       ``(iii) not based on a higher erodibility standard than 
     other highly erodible land located within the same area, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) if'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) through (h) as 
     subsections (g) through (i), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Effect on Landlords.--Ineligibility of a tenant or 
     sharecropper for benefits under section 1211 shall not cause 
     a landlord to be ineligible for the benefits for which the 
     landlord would otherwise be eligible with respect to a 
     commodity produced on land other than the land operated by 
     the tenant or sharecropper.''; and
       (4) in subsection (g) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``(g)(1) Except to the extent provided in 
     paragraph (2), no'' and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Good Faith Exemption.--
       ``(1) Continued eligibility.--No'';
       (B) by striking ``has--'' and all that follows through 
     ``(B) acted'' and inserting ``has acted'';
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``Secretary shall, in lieu'' and all that 
     follows through ``crop year'' and inserting ``person shall 
     not be ineligible for loans or payments under section 1211''; 
     and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``A person who the 
     Secretary determines has acted in good faith and without 
     intent to violate this subtitle shall be allowed a period of 
     1 year during which to implement the measures and practices 
     necessary to be considered to be actively applying a 
     conservation plan.'';
       (D) by striking paragraph (3);
       (E) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Failure to apply conservation plan.--If a person 
     fails to actively apply a conservation plan that documents 
     the decisions of the person with respect to location, land 
     use, tillage systems, and conservation treatment measures and 
     schedules of the conservation plan by the date that is 1 year 
     after the good faith violation, the Secretary shall make a 
     determination concerning the ineligibility of the person 
     under section 1211.''.
       (c) Development and Implementation of Conservation Plans 
     and Systems.--Subtitle B of title XII of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3811 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1214. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSERVATION 
                   PLANS AND SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) Technical Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the standards and guidelines contained in a local 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service field office technical 
     guide applicable to a conservation plan required under this 
     subtitle--
       ``(1) allow a person to use an alternative conservation 
     system as a means of meeting the requirements, and achieving 
     the goals, of this subtitle with respect to a highly erodible 
     field that has been used in the production of an agricultural 
     commodity after December 23, 1985; and
       ``(2) provide for conservation measures and practices 
     that--
       ``(A) are technically and economically feasible;
       ``(B) are based on local resource conditions and available 
     conservation technology;
       ``(C) are cost-effective; and
       ``(D) do not cause undue economic hardship to the person 
     applying the plan or system.
       ``(b) Erosion Measurement.--For the purpose of determining 
     compliance with this subtitle, the measurement of erosion 
     reduction achieved through a conservation plan shall be based 
     on the level of erosion at the time of the measurement 
     compared to the level of erosion that was present prior to 
     the implementation of the conservation measures and practices 
     provided for in the conservation plan.
       ``(c) Crop Residue Measurements.--
       ``(1) Certification of compliance.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the purpose of determining the 
     compliance of a person with the conservation plan on a farm, 
     a third party approved by the Secretary may certify that the 
     person is in compliance if the person is actively applying an 
     approved conservation system or alternative conservation 
     system at the time application for the loans or payments 
     specified in section 1211 is made.
       ``(B) Status reviews.--If a person obtains a variance, the 
     Secretary shall not be required to carry out a review of the 
     status of compliance of the person with the conservation plan 
     under which the conservation system is being applied if the 
     sole reason for the review is the fact that the person 
     received the variance.
       ``(2) Residue measurements provided by persons.--If a 
     status review is carried out, annual crop residue 
     measurements supplied by a person and certified by a third 
     party approved by the Secretary shall be taken into 
     consideration by the Secretary for the purpose of determining 
     compliance if the measurements demonstrate that, on the basis 
     of a 5-year average of the residue level on the field (as 
     determined by the Secretary), the crop residue level for a 
     field meets the level required under the conservation plan.
       ``(d) Revisions.--
       ``(1) Conservation plans.--
       ``(A) Revisions by person obtaining certification.--A 
     person that obtains a conservation plan under section 
     1212(a)(2) may revise the plan by substituting practices 
     described in the local Natural Resources Conservation Service 
     technical guide, if the revised plan achieves an equivalent 
     amount of soil erosion reduction as the original plan, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) No revision by the secretary.--The conservation plan 
     of a person who obtains a certification under subsection (c) 
     shall not be subject to revision by the Secretary, unless--
       ``(i) the person concurs with the revision; or
       ``(ii) the person has been determined by the Secretary, 
     within the most recent 1-year period, to be ineligible under 
     section 1211 for program loans and payments.
       ``(C) Approval of alternative conservation system.--The 
     Secretary shall approve or disapprove an alternative 
     conservation system proposed by a producer not later than 30 
     days after the date the system is proposed.
       ``(D) Local field office technical guide.--If the 
     alternative conservation system is approved by the Secretary 
     and is appropriate to an area, the Secretary shall add the 
     approved alternative conservation system to the local Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service field office technical guide 
     for the area.
       ``(2) Conservation systems.--The Secretary may revise under 
     paragraph (1) the conservation system of a person who obtains 
     a certification, subject to subsection (a), if there is 
     substantial evidence as determined by the Secretary that a 
     revision is necessary to carry out this subtitle.
       ``(3) Updating local field office technical guides.--The 
     Secretary shall regularly revise local Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service field office technical guides to include 
     new conservation systems that the Secretary determines will 
     reduce soil erosion in a cost-effective manner.
       ``(e) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance to a person throughout the development, 
     revision, and application of a conservation plan or 
     conservation system.
       ``(f) Violations.--
       ``(1) Notification.--An employee of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service who observes a possible compliance 
     deficiency or other violation of this subtitle while 
     providing on-site technical assistance to a person shall--
       ``(A) not later than 45 days after making the observation, 
     notify the person of any actions that are necessary to 
     correct the deficiency or violation; and
       ``(B) permit the person to correct the deficiency or 
     violation within the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
     the notification.
       ``(2) Correction of compliance deficiencies.--A person that 
     receives a notification under paragraph (1) shall attempt to 
     correct the deficiency as soon as practicable.
       ``(3) Status review.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of a notification under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     carry out a review of the status of compliance of the person 
     with the conservation plan under which the conservation 
     system is being applied.
       ``(4) Failure to correct compliance deficiency.--If a 
     person fails to correct a deficiency or violation by the date 
     that is 1 year after the date of a notification under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make a determination 
     concerning the ineligibility of the person under section 
     1211.

[[Page S 16498]]

       ``(g) Expedited Variances.--
       ``(1) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish expedited 
     procedures, in consultation with local conservation 
     districts, for the consideration and granting of temporary 
     variances to allow for the use of practices and measures to 
     address problems related to pests, disease, nutrient 
     management, and weather conditions (including drought, hail, 
     and excessive moisture) or for such other purposes as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(2) Response within 15 days.--The Secretary shall grant 
     or deny a request for a variance described in paragraph (1) 
     not later than 15 days after receiving the request.''.
       (d) Affiliated Persons.--Subtitle B of title XII of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.) (as amended by subsection (c)) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1215. AFFILIATED PERSONS.

       ``If a person is affected by a reduction in benefits under 
     section 1211 and the affected person is affiliated with other 
     persons for the purpose of receiving the benefits, the 
     benefits of each affiliated person shall be reduced under 
     section 1211 in proportion to the interest held by the 
     affiliated person.''.
       (e) Applicability.--Subtitle B of title XII of the Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3811 et seq.) (as amended by subsection (d)) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1216. APPLICABILITY.

       ``This subtitle shall be effective during the period 
     beginning January 1, 1996, and ending December 31, 2002.''.

     SEC. 5. WETLANDS REFORM.

       (a) Program Ineligibility.--Section 1221 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (2) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through the end of subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1221. PROGRAM INELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 1222 and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who 
     participates in an annual program under the Agricultural Act 
     of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) after January 1, 1996, and 
     who in any crop year after that date produces an agricultural 
     commodity on converted wetland, as determined by the 
     Secretary, shall be--
       ``(1) in violation of this section; and
       ``(2) ineligible for loans or payments in an amount 
     determined by the Secretary to be proportionate to the 
     severity of the violation.
       ``(b) Loans and Payments.--If a person has been determined 
     to have committed a violation during a crop year under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine which, and the 
     amount, of the following loans and payments for which the 
     person shall be ineligible:
       ``(1) Any type of price support or payment made available 
     under the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 
     et seq.), or any other Act.
       ``(2) A farm storage facility loan made under section 4(h) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714b(h)).
       ``(3) A loan made, insured, or guaranteed under the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) or any other provision of law administered by the 
     Consolidated Farm Service Agency, if the Secretary determines 
     that the proceeds of the loan will be used for a purpose that 
     will contribute to conversion of a wetland (other than as 
     provided in this subtitle) to produce an agricultural 
     commodity.
       ``(4) A payment under section 4 or 5 of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c) 
     during the crop year for the storage of an agricultural 
     commodity acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
       ``(5) During the crop year:
       ``(A) A payment under section 8, 12, or 16(b) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h, 
     590l, and 590p(b)).
       ``(B) A payment under section 401 or 402 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202).
       ``(C) A payment under subchapter B or C of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D.
       ``(D) A payment under chapter 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(E) A payment under chapter 3 of subtitle D.
       ``(F) A payment, loan, or other assistance under section 3 
     or 8 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1003 and 1006a).''; and
       (3) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``Except'' and inserting ``Wetland 
     Conversion.--Except''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsections (a) (1) through (3)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)''.
       (b) Delineation of Wetland; Exemptions.--Section 1222 of 
     the Act (16 U.S.C. 3822) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Delineation by the Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, subject to 
     subsection (b), delineate, determine, and certify all 
     wetlands located on subject land on a farm.
       ``(2) Wetland delineation maps.--The Secretary shall 
     delineate wetlands on wetland delineation maps. On the 
     request of an owner or operator, the Secretary shall make a 
     reasonable effort to make an on-site wetland determination 
     prior to delineation.
       ``(3) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--On providing notice to affected owners 
     or operators, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) certify whether a map is sufficient for the purpose 
     of making a determination of ineligibility for program 
     benefits under section 1221; and
       ``(ii) provide an opportunity to appeal the certification 
     prior to the certification becoming final.
       ``(B) Review of mapping.--In the case of an appeal, the 
     Secretary shall review and certify the accuracy of the 
     mapping of all land subject to the appeal to ensure that the 
     subject land has been accurately delineated.
       ``(C) Inspection of land.--Prior to rendering a decision on 
     the appeal, the Secretary shall conduct an on-site inspection 
     of the subject land on a farm.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (j) as 
     subsections (c) through (k), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Requests for Delineation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any delineation or determination of the 
     presence of wetland on subject land on a farm made under this 
     subtitle shall be valid until such time as the owner or 
     operator of the land requests a new delineation or 
     determination.
       ``(2) Change in delineation.--In the case of a change in a 
     delineation or determination, the Secretary shall promptly 
     notify the owner or operator of the subject land on a farm 
     that is affected by the change.
       ``(3) Reliance on prior delineation.--Any action taken with 
     respect to subject land on a farm by an owner or operator in 
     reliance on a prior wetland delineation or determination by 
     the Secretary shall not be subject to a subsequent wetland 
     delineation or determination by the Secretary.'';
       (4) by striking subsection (c) (as so redesignated) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Exemptions.--No person shall become ineligible under 
     section 1221 for program loans or payments--
       ``(1) as the result of the production of an agricultural 
     commodity on land that--
       ``(A) was manipulated prior to December 23, 1985;
       ``(B) is a wetland that is less than 1 acre in size;
       ``(C) is a nontidal drainage or irrigation ditch excavated 
     in upland;
       ``(D) is an artificially irrigated area that would revert 
     to upland if the irrigation ceased;
       ``(E) is land in Alaska identified as having a high 
     potential for agricultural development and with a 
     predominance of permafrost soils;
       ``(F) is an artificial lake or pond created by excavating 
     or diking land that is not a wetland to collect and retain 
     water and is used primarily for livestock watering, fish 
     production, irrigation, wildlife, fire control, flood 
     control, cranberry growing, or rice production, or as a 
     settling pond;
       ``(G) is a wetland that is temporarily or incidentally 
     created as a result of adjacent development activity; or
       ``(H) is frequently cropped agricultural land; or
       ``(2) for the conversion of--
       ``(A) an artificial lake or pond created by excavating or 
     diking land that is not a wetland to collect and retain water 
     and that is used primarily for livestock watering, fish 
     production, irrigation, wildlife, fire control, flood 
     control, cranberry growing, rice production, or as a settling 
     pond; or
       ``(B) a wetland that is temporarily or incidentally created 
     as a result of adjacent development activity.'';
       (5) in subsection (g)(2) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``where such restoration'' and inserting 
     ``through the enhancement of an existing wetland or through 
     the creation of a new wetland, and the restoration, 
     enhancement, or creation'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, enhancement, or 
     creation'' after ``restoration'';
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``in the case of 
     enhancement and restoration of wetlands,'' after ``(D)'';
       (D) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively;
       (E) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) in the case of creation of wetlands, on greater than 
     a 1-for-1 acreage basis if more acreage is needed to provide 
     equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result 
     of the wetland conversion that is mitigated;''; and
       (F) in subparagraph (F)--
       (i) by striking ``restored'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``restored, enhanced, or created''; and
       (ii) by striking ``restoration'' and inserting 
     ``restoration, enhancement, or creation'';
       (6) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 23, 1985,'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end of the 
     paragraph and inserting ``January 1, 1996, shall be waived by 
     the Secretary if the Secretary determines that the person has 
     acted in good faith and without intent to violate this 
     subtitle.''; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Period for compliance.--A person who the Secretary 
     determines has acted in good faith and without intent to 
     violate this subtitle shall be allowed a period of 1 year 
     during which to implement the measures and practices 
     necessary to be considered to actively restoring the subject 
     wetland.'';
       (7) in subsection (k) (as so redesignated)--

[[Page S 16499]]

       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``and a 
     representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``, who in'' and 
     all that follows through ``Service''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and a representative'' 
     and all that follows through ``national offices'' and 
     inserting ``shall report to the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service''; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Mitigation Banking.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program (to be carried out during a 1-year period) for 
     mitigation banking of wetlands to assist owners and operators 
     in complying with the wetland conservation requirements of 
     this subtitle.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the effective 
     date of this paragraph, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate on the progress in carrying out the pilot program 
     established under paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Consultation With the Secretary of the Interior.--
     Subtitle C of title XII of the Act is amended--
       (1) by striking section 1223 (16 U.S.C. 3823); and
       (2) by redesignating section 1224 (16 U.S.C. 3824) as 
     section 1223.
       (d) Affiliated Persons.--Subtitle C of title XII of the Act 
     (as amended by subsection (c)) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1224. AFFILIATED PERSONS.

       ``If a person is affected by a reduction in benefits under 
     section 1221 and the affected person is affiliated with other 
     persons for the purpose of receiving the benefits, the 
     benefits of each affiliated person shall be reduced under 
     section 1221 in proportion to the interest held by the 
     affiliated person.''.
       (e) Applicability.--Subtitle C of title XII of the Act (as 
     amended by subsection (d)) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1225. APPLICABILITY.

       ``This subtitle shall be effective during the period 
     beginning January 1, 1996, and ending December 31, 2002.''.
       (f) Easements on Inventory Property.--Section 335 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1985) 
     is amended by striking subsection (g) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) Easements on Inventory Property.--The Secretary may 
     not place a permanent wetland conservation or floodplain 
     easement on any farm property after January 1, 1996.''.
       (g) Agricultural Land.--Section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``The term'' and 
     inserting ``Except as otherwise provided in this section, the 
     term''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(u) Agricultural Land.--
       ``(1) Definition of agricultural land.--In this subsection, 
     the term `agricultural land' means cropland, pastureland, 
     native pasture, rangeland, an orchard, a vineyard, an area 
     that supports a wetland crop (including cranberries, taro, 
     watercress, or rice), and any other land that is used to 
     produce or support the production of an annual or perennial 
     agricultural crop (including forage production or hay), an 
     aquaculture product, a nursery product, or a wetland crop.
       ``(2) Determinations on agricultural land.--The Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall make all determinations concerning the 
     presence of a wetland on agricultural land under this section 
     and determinations regarding the discharge or dredge of fill 
     material from normal farming and ranching activities, as 
     provided in subsection (f)(1)(A). Determinations concerning 
     the presence of a wetland, and normal farming and ranching 
     practices, on agricultural land shall be made pursuant to 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE PROGRAM.

       Section 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3830) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1230. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 1996 through 2002 calendar 
     years, the Secretary shall establish an environmental 
     conservation acreage reserve program (referred to in this 
     section as `ECARP') to be implemented through contracts and 
     the acquisition of easements to assist owners and operators 
     of farms and ranches to conserve and enhance soil, water, and 
     related natural resources, including grazing land, wetland, 
     and wildlife habitat.
       ``(2) Means.--The Secretary shall carry out the ECARP by--
       ``(A) providing for the long-term protection of 
     environmentally sensitive land; and
       ``(B) providing technical and financial assistance to 
     farmers and ranchers to--
       ``(i) improve the management and operation of the farms and 
     ranches; and
       ``(ii) reconcile productivity and profitability with 
     protection and enhancement of the environment.
       ``(3) Programs.--The ECARP shall consist of--
       ``(A) the conservation reserve program established under 
     subchapter B;
       ``(B) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C; and
       ``(C) the environmental quality incentive program 
     established under chapter 2.
       ``(b) Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out the ECARP, the Secretary 
     shall enter into contracts with owners and operators and 
     acquire interests in land through easements from owners, as 
     provided in this chapter and chapter 2.
       ``(2) Prior enrollments.--Acreage enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve or wetlands reserve program prior to the 
     effective date of this paragraph shall be considered to be 
     placed into the ECARP.
       ``(c) Conservation Priority Areas.--
       ``(1) Designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall designate watersheds 
     or regions of special environmental sensitivity, including 
     the Chesapeake Bay Region (consisting of Pennsylvania, 
     Maryland, and Virginia), the Great Lakes Region, and the Long 
     Island Sound Region, as conservation priority areas that are 
     eligible for enhanced assistance through the programs 
     established under this chapter and chapter 2.
       ``(B) Application.--A designation shall be made under this 
     paragraph if agricultural practices on land within the 
     watershed or region pose a significant threat to soil, water, 
     and related natural resources, as determined by the 
     Secretary, and an application is made by--
       ``(i) a State agency in consultation with the State 
     technical committee established under section 1261; or
       ``(ii) State agencies from several States that agree to 
     form an interstate conservation priority area.
       ``(C) Assistance.--The Secretary shall designate a 
     watershed or region of special environmental sensitivity as a 
     conservation priority area to assist, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, agricultural producers within the watershed or 
     region to comply with nonpoint source pollution requirements 
     under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     et seq.) and other Federal and State environmental laws.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The Secretary shall designate a 
     watershed or region of special environmental sensitivity as a 
     conservation priority area in a manner that conforms, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, to the functions and purposes of 
     the conservation reserve, wetlands reserve, and environmental 
     quality incentives programs, as applicable, if participation 
     in the program or programs is likely to result in the 
     resolution or amelioration of significant soil, water, and 
     related natural resource problems related to agricultural 
     production activities within the watershed or region.
       ``(3) Termination.--A conservation priority area 
     designation shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after 
     the date of the designation, except that the Secretary may--
       ``(A) redesignate the area as a conservation priority area; 
     or
       ``(B) withdraw the designation of a watershed or region if 
     the Secretary determines the area is no longer affected by 
     significant soil, water, and related natural resource impacts 
     related to agricultural production activities.''.

     SEC. 7. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose and Goals.--Section 1231(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--Through'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--Through'';
       (2) by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Goals.--The goals of the conservation reserve program 
     shall be to--
       ``(A) idle land only on a voluntary basis;
       ``(B) conserve the environment, including soil, water, and 
     air;
       ``(C) ensure respect for private property rights; and
       ``(D) enhance wildlife and wildlife habitat.''.
       (b) Eligible Lands.--Section 1231 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3831) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Eligible Lands.--The Secretary may include in the 
     program established under this subchapter--
       ``(1) highly erodible cropland that--
       ``(A) if permitted to remain untreated could substantially 
     impair soil, water, or related natural resources;
       ``(B) cannot be farmed in accordance with a conservation 
     plan established under section 1212; and
       ``(C) meets or exceeds an erodibility index of 8;
       ``(2) marginal pasture land converted to wetland;
       ``(3) cropland or pasture land in or near riparian areas 
     that could enhance water quality;
       ``(4) frequently cropped agricultural land; and
       ``(5) cropland or pasture land to be devoted to windbreaks, 
     shelterbelts, or wildlife corridors.''.
       (c) Enrollment Priorities.--Section 1231 of the Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3831) is amended by striking subsection (d) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Enrollment.--
       ``(1) Limitations.--Enrollments in the conservation reserve 
     (including acreage subject to contracts extended by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 

[[Page S 16500]]

     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note)) during the 1986 
     through 2002 calendar years may not exceed 36,400,000 acres.
       ``(2) Spending limitation.--Total spending for enrollments 
     under paragraph (1) may not exceed the spending limitations 
     established under section 1241(e).
       ``(3) Priorities.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, with each periodic enrollment (including 
     acreage subject to contracts extended by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990), enroll acreage in the 
     conservation reserve that meets the priority criteria for 
     water quality, wetland, soil erosion, and wildlife habitat as 
     provided in subsection (e) and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, maximize multiple environmental benefits.''.
       (d) Priority Functions.--Section 1231 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 
     3831) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (e) through (g) as 
     subsections (f) through (h); respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Priority Functions.--
       ``(1) In general.--During all periodic enrollments of 
     acreage (including acreage subject to contracts extended by 
     the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note)), the Secretary shall evaluate 
     all offers to enter into contracts under this subchapter in 
     light of the priority criteria specified in paragraphs (2), 
     (3), (4), and (5), and accept only the offers that meet the 
     criteria specified in paragraph (2), (3), or (4), maximize 
     the benefits specified in paragraph (5), and maximize 
     environmental benefits per dollar expended. If an offer meets 
     the criteria specified in paragraph (5) and paragraph (2), 
     (3), or (4), the offer shall receive higher priority, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Water quality.--
       ``(A) Targeted land.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the 
     Secretary shall enroll in the conservation reserve program at 
     least 1,500,000 acres of cropland or pasture land that are 
     contiguous or proximate to--
       ``(i) permanent bodies of water;
       ``(ii) tributaries or smaller streams; or
       ``(iii) intermittent streams that the Secretary determines 
     significantly contribute to downstream water quality 
     degradation.
       ``(B) Purposes.--The land may be enrolled by the Secretary 
     in the conservation reserve to establish--
       ``(i) filterstrips;
       ``(ii) contour grass strips;
       ``(iii) grassed waterways; and
       ``(iv) other equivalent conservation measures that have a 
     high potential to ameliorate pollution from crop and 
     livestock production.
       ``(C) Partial and whole fields.--Enrollments under this 
     paragraph may include partial and whole fields, except that 
     the Secretary shall provide a higher priority to partial 
     field enrollments.
       ``(3) Wetlands.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall accept offers to 
     enroll up to 1,500,000 acres of frequently cropped 
     agricultural land, including such land enrolled (as of the 
     effective date of this subparagraph) in the conservation 
     reserve and subsequently subject to a contract extension 
     under section 1437 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 
     note), as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Functions and values.--In enrolling land under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give a priority to 
     enrolling frequently cropped agricultural land that the 
     Secretary determines maximizes preservation of wetland 
     functions and values.
       ``(4) Soil erosion.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall accept offers to 
     enroll a field containing highly erodible land if--
       ``(i) a predominance of land on the field is qualifying 
     highly erodible land that has an erodiblity index of at least 
     8;
       ``(ii) a predominance of at least 80 percent of the field 
     consists of qualifying highly erodible land; and
       ``(iii) the part of the field that does not have an 
     erodibility index of at least 8 cannot be cultivated in a 
     cost-effective manner if separated from the qualifying highly 
     erodible land, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Partial field enrollments.--A portion of a field 
     containing qualifying highly erodible land under this 
     paragraph shall be eligible for enrollment if the partial 
     field segment would provide a significant reduction in soil 
     erosion.
       ``(5) Wildlife habitat benefits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, ensure that offers to enroll acreage 
     under paragraph (2), (3), or (4) are accepted so as to 
     maximize wildlife habitat benefits.
       ``(B) Maximizing benefits.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     maximize wildlife habitat benefits by--
       ``(i) consulting with State technical committees 
     established under section 1261 as to the relative habitat 
     benefits of each offer, and accepting offers that maximize 
     benefits; and
       ``(ii) providing higher priority to offers that would be 
     contiguous to--

       ``(I) other enrolled acreage;
       ``(II) designated wildlife habitat; or
       ``(III) a wetland.

       ``(C) Cover crop information.--The Secretary shall provide 
     information to owners or operators about cover crops that are 
     best suited for area wildlife.''.
       (e) Duration of Contract.--Section 1231(f) of the Act (as 
     so redesignated) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, as determined by the owner or operator of the 
     land''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``A contract 
     extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note) may have a term of 
     5, 10, or 15 years, as determined by the owner or operator of 
     the land.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Early out.--The Secretary shall allow an owner or 
     operator who (on the effective date of this paragraph) is 
     covered by a contract entered into under this subchapter to 
     terminate the contract not later than April 15, 1996. Land 
     subject to an early termination of a contract under this 
     paragraph may not include filterstrips, waterways, strips 
     adjacent to riparian areas, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and 
     other areas of high environmental value as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1231 of the Act (as 
     amended by subsection (d)(1)) is further amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (g); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
       (g) Incidental Grazing.--Section 1232(a)(7) of the Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3832(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``except that the Secretary may'' and 
     inserting ``except that the Secretary--
       ``(A) may'';
       (2) by striking ``emergency, and the Secretary may'' and 
     inserting the following: ``emergency;
       ``(B) may'';
       (3) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) shall allow incidental grazing during the nongrowing 
     season on filter strips and other partial field enrollments 
     within the borders of an active field;''.
       (h) Annual Rental Payments.--Section 1234 of the Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3834) is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Annual Rental Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--In determining the amount of annual 
     rental payments to be paid to owners and operators for 
     converting eligible cropland normally devoted to the 
     production of an agricultural commodity to a less intensive 
     use, the Secretary may consider, among other factors, the 
     amount necessary to encourage owners or operators of eligible 
     cropland to participate in the program established by this 
     subchapter.
       ``(2) Amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amounts payable to owners or 
     operators as rental payments under contracts entered into 
     under this subchapter shall be determined by the Secretary 
     through--
       ``(i) the submission of offers for the contracts by owners 
     and operators in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe; 
     and
       ``(ii) determination of the rental value for the land 
     through a productivity adjustment formula established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Maximum rental rates.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and 
     (iii), rental rates may not exceed the productivity adjusted 
     rental rate, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Partial field enrollments.--Rental rates for partial 
     field enrollments for water quality, soil erosion, or wetland 
     priority functions under section 1231(e) may not exceed 125 
     percent of the rental rate for the land, as determined by the 
     Secretary based on a productivity adjustment formula.
       ``(iii) Conservation priority areas.--Rental rates for 
     partial field enrollments in conservation priority areas 
     under section 1230(c) may not exceed 150 percent of the 
     rental rate for the land, as determined by the Secretary 
     based on a productivity adjustment formula.
       ``(C) Minimum rental rates.--Rental rates for land subject 
     to a contract extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     1437 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note) may not be 
     less than 80 percent of the average rental rate for all 
     contracts in force in the county at the time of the 
     extension.
       ``(3) Trees.--In the case of acreage enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve that is to be devoted to trees, the 
     Secretary may consider offers for contracts under this 
     subsection on a continuous basis.''.
       (i) Ownership and Operation Requirements.--Section 1235(a) 
     of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3835(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``1985'' and inserting 
     ``1996''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking ``1985'' and 
     inserting ``1996''.
       (j) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1235A(b)(2) of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3835a(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``or 
     permanent''.

     SEC. 8. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Purposes.--Section 1237(a) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(a)) is amended by striking ``to assist 
     owners of eligible lands in restoring and protecting 
     wetlands'' and inserting ``to protect wetlands for purposes 
     of enhancing water quality and providing wildlife benefits 
     while recognizing landowner rights''.
       (b) Minimum Enrollment.--Section 1237(b) of the Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3837(b)) is amended by 

[[Page S 16501]]

     striking ``program'' and all that follows through ``2000'' 
     and inserting ``program a total of not more than 975,000 
     acres during the 1991 through 2002''.
       (c) Eligibility.--Section 1237(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3837(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2002'';
       (2) by striking ``Secretary of the Interior at the local 
     level'' and inserting ``State technical committee'';
       (3) by inserting ``the land maximizes wildlife benefits and 
     wetland values and functions and'' after ``determines that'';
       (4) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``December 23, 1985'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 1996''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) enrollment of the land meets water quality goals 
     through--
       ``(A) creation of tailwater pits or settlement ponds; or
       ``(B) enrollment of land that was enrolled (on the day 
     before the effective date of this subparagraph) in the water 
     bank program established under the Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1301 et seq.) at a rate not to exceed the rates in effect 
     under the program;'';
       (7) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) enrollment of the land maintains or improves wildlife 
     habitat.''.
       (d) Other Eligible Lands.--Section 1237(d) (16 U.S.C. 
     3837(d)) is amended by inserting after ``subsection (c)'' the 
     following ``, land that maximizes wildlife benefits and that 
     is''.
       (e) Easements.--Section 1237A of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3837a) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Restoration Plans.--The development of a restoration 
     plan, including any compatible use, under this section shall 
     be made through the local Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service representative, in consultation with the State 
     technical committee.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Type and Length of Easement.--A conservation easement 
     granted under this section--
       ``(1) shall be in a recordable form;
       ``(2) shall be for 20 or 30 years; and
       ``(3) shall not exceed the maximum duration allowed under 
     applicable State law.''; and
       (3) in subsection (f), by striking the third sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Compensation may be provided in 
     not less than 5, nor more than 30, annual payments of equal 
     or unequal size, as agreed to by the owner and the 
     Secretary.''.
       (f) Duties of the Secretary.--Section 1237C(d) of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3837c(d)) is amended by striking ``, in 
     consultation'' and all that follows through ``Interior,''.

     SEC. 9. CONSERVATION FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle E of title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended to 
     read as follows:
                         ``Subtitle E--Funding

     ``SEC. 1241. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Mandatory Expenses.--For each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002, the Secretary shall use the funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the programs 
     authorized by--
       ``(1) subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D (including 
     contracts extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 
     of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note));
       ``(2) subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(3) chapter 2 of subtitle D for practices related to 
     livestock production.
       ``(b) Advance Appropriations to CCC.--The Secretary may use 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     chapter 3 of subtitle D, except that the Secretary may not 
     use the funds of the Corporation unless the Corporation has 
     received funds to cover the expenditures from appropriations 
     made available to carry out chapter 3 of subtitle D.
       ``(c) Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--For each 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2002, $100,000,000 of the funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation shall be available for 
     providing technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and 
     incentive payments for practices relating to livestock 
     production under the environmental quality incentives 
     program.
       ``(d) Wetlands Reserve Program.--Spending to carry out the 
     wetlands reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D shall be not greater than $614,000,000 for fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2002.
       ``(e) Conservation Reserve Program.--Spending for the 
     conservation reserve program (including contracts extended by 
     the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note)) shall be not greater than--
       ``(1) $1,787,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $1,784,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $1,445,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(4) $1,246,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(5) $1,101,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(6) $999,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(7) $974,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

     ``SEC. 1242. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Plans.--The Secretary shall, to the extent 
     practicable, avoid duplication in--
       ``(1) the conservation plans required for--
       ``(A) highly erodible land conservation under subtitle B;
       ``(B) the conservation reserve program established under 
     subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(C) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(2) the environmental quality incentives program plan 
     established under chapter 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(b) Acreage Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not enroll more than 
     25 percent of the cropland in any county in the programs 
     administered under the conservation reserve and wetlands 
     reserve programs established under subchapters B and C, 
     respectively, of chapter 1 of subtitle D. Not more than 10 
     percent of the cropland in a county may be subject to an 
     easement acquired under the subchapters.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may exceed the limitations 
     in paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the action would not adversely affect the local 
     economy of a county; and
       ``(B) operators in the county are having difficulties 
     complying with conservation plans implemented under section 
     1212.
       ``(3) Shelterbelts and windbreaks.--The limitations 
     established under this subsection shall not apply to cropland 
     that is subject to an easement under chapter 1 or 3 of 
     subtitle D that is used for the establishment of shelterbelts 
     and windbreaks.
       ``(c) Tenant Protection.--Except for a person who is a 
     tenant on land that is subject to a conservation reserve 
     contract that has been extended by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to protect the 
     interests of tenants and sharecroppers, including provision 
     for sharing, on a fair and equitable basis, in payments under 
     the programs established under subtitles B through D.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     effective date of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to implement the conservation reserve and 
     wetlands reserve programs established under chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The first sentence of the matter under the heading 
     ``Commodity Credit Corporation'' of Public Law 99-263 (100 
     Stat. 59; 16 U.S.C. 3841 note) is amended by striking ``: 
     Provided further,'' and all that follows through ``Acts''.
       (2) Section 1232(a)(11) of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(11)) is amended by striking ``in a county 
     that has not reached the limitation established by section 
     1243(f)''.

     SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Rural Environmental Conservation Program.--
       (1) Elimination.--Title X of the Agricultural Act of 1970 
     (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 246(b) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6962(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (7), respectively.
       (b) Other Conservation Provisions.--Subtitle F of title XII 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 2005a and 2101 
     note) is repealed.
       (c) Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.--Section 5(g) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714c(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Carry out conservation functions and programs.''.
       (d) Resource Conservation.--
       (1) Elimination.--Subtitles A, B, D, E, F, G, and J of 
     title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (95 Stat. 
     1328; 16 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) are repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 739 of the Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1982 (7 U.S.C. 2272a), is 
     repealed.
       (e) Environmental Easement Program.--Section 1239(a) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996 through 
     2002''.
       (f) Resource Conservation and Development Program.--Section 
     1538 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3461) 
     is amended by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting 
     ``1996 through 2002''.

     SEC. 11. WILDLIFE BENEFITS.

       In carrying out conservation programs, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture is encouraged to promote wildlife benefits to the 
     extent practicable and to the extent that the action does not 
     conflict with the requirements or purposes of the programs.

     SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall become effective on the later of--
       (1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) January 1, 1996.
       (b) Transition Provisions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall not affect the authority of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to carry out a program for any of the 1991 
     through 1995 calendar years under a provision of law in 
     effect immediately before 

[[Page S 16502]]

     the effective date required under subsection (a).

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when Republicans took control of Congress in 
January, we promised the American people that we would rein in the 
Federal Government, and shift power back where it belongs--to the 
States and to the people. The Senate has worked hard to fulfill that 
promise. We are tackling regulatory reform, tax reform, and private 
property rights--and we are just getting started.
  Today, I am joined by Senator Lugar, Senator Craig, and Senator 
Grassley, to introduce the Resource Enhancement Act of 1995. This bill 
outlines practical and necessary reforms to the environmental 
provisions of the 1995 farm bill.
  Mr. President, the 1985 farm bill included three environmental 
provisions which revolutionized farm policy. Swampbuster, sodbuster, 
and the Conservation Reserve Program provided the first link between 
the preservation of soil and wetlands, and farm program participation.
  No doubt about it, these programs have been successful. But over the 
past decade, we have learned many valuable lessons. Now it is clear 
that substantive reform is needed. These provisions were not intended 
to put high-quality land in the CRP. They were not intended to allow 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Army Corps of Engineers to 
usurp the authority of the USDA.
  In 1985, no one anticipated that a blanket ``highly erodible land'' 
designation--based on 1930's wind data--would reduce property values in 
13 western Kansas counties. In 1985, no one expected that existing 
drainage ditches or tiles in farmed fields would be labeled 
``abandoned'' and thus be prevented from repair.

  In my view, this legislation achieves balanced reform by building on 
the intent of the original legislation. The primary focus of the 1985 
farm bill was preventing soil erosion. We have made good progress 
toward that goal, but much remains to be done. Now we must expand our 
focus to include water quality and wildlife habitat improvements. Soil 
conservation and the Conservation Reserve Program are crucial to 
achieving those goals.
  In the past, farm program participation was tied to conservation 
compliance. However, the trend in farm spending is clear. Since 1985, 
Commodity Credit Corporation spending on wheat has declined over 40 
percent. Spending on milo has declined a staggering 69 percent. At this 
pace, any linkage will soon vanish. If we aim to fulfill the intent of 
conservation and wetlands laws--and we should--we must adjust to 
today's conditions.
  Earlier this year, I spoke to the American Farm Bureau Federation's 
annual meeting. Farmers there told me that they are willing to accept 
less Government support--if the Government will stop interfering in 
their businesses.
  Our bill is a prescription for judicious reform. In my view, it is a 
remedy desperately needed to save farmers from a terminal case of 
overregulation.
  This legislation will accomplish three basic goals:
  First, reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, while maintaining basic 
environmental objectives;
  Second, restore respect for basic private property rights;
  Third, promote voluntary compliance of conservation and environmental 
objectives.

  Further, this bill adds flexibility and uniformity to conservation 
and wetlands compliance.
  Flexibility will be the guiding principle of conservation compliance. 
The current system of measuring erosion and regulating compliance will 
be clarified and codified.
  The Conservation Reserve Program will be reauthorized and modified. 
In addition to protecting highly erodible land, the program will 
incorporate water quality goals, wetlands protection, and wildlife 
preservation.
  Many farmers tell me that the current swampbuster regulations allow 
the Government to infringe on their property rights. However, the 
conservation community tells me that swampbuster is one of the most 
important wetlands protection laws ever enacted. In our bill, we 
address the need for deregulation by exempting frequently cropped and 
nuisance wetlands. At the same time, we aim to further wetlands 
protection by directing USDA to enroll wetlands in the CRP.
  Mr. President, this bill is the result of months of hard work and 
cooperation among conservation, wildlife, and farm groups. I believe 
its impact will be good for the environment, good for wildlife 
preservation, and good for farmers. It is my hope that this legislation 
represents a new covenant between the environmental and farm 
communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to give the 
American people better, not bigger government.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce a bill today 
that I hope will serve as the framework for crafting the conservation 
title of the 1995 farm bill. The Resources Enhancement Act is a 
balanced approach to blending the successes of past policy with the 
changing scope of future needs.
  The role of conservation programs in American agriculture are 
sometimes overlooked and underestimated. Farmers and ranchers are the 
original environmentalists and because of their dependence on the land 
they continue to implement voluntary practices that are in the best 
interests of those resources.
  The Resources Enhancement Act will maximize the voluntary efforts of 
farmers and ranchers by extending the role of State and Federal 
agencies, as well as some private entities, as partners in that effort. 
This includes an extension of the immensely popular resource 
conservation and development districts through 2002.
  However, it is of the utmost importance that Government agencies are 
not placed in the role of policing the actions of these farmers. This 
bill emphasizes technical advice and cost share of projects for our 
Nation's farmers, rather than enforcement and penalties.
  The Conservation Reserve Program as currently implemented enjoys 
widespread support among Idaho farmers. CRP will be extended for at 
least another 10 years under the Resources Enhancement Act. The 
positive gains in soil conservation will be continued along with an 
increased focus on water quality and wildlife habitat.
  Idaho farmers will now be able to enroll hill tops and filter strips, 
rather than entire fields of productive land. A premium of up to 125 
percent of productivity adjusted rental rates will be paid for those 
partial field enrollments.
  For those still submitting entire field bids, the enrollment criteria 
of an erodibility index of 8 is similar to the current program. To 
provide some stability to farmers and local economies, a floor will be 
established for reenrollments. That floor will be 80 percent of the 
average rental rate for other contracts in the same county.
  Common sense must also prevail in other farm programs, especially 
those relating to compliance with conservation requirements on highly 
erodible lands. This bill will increase the flexibility of producers in 
meeting the requirements of their approved conservation plans.
  For the first time, alternate conservation systems will be written 
into law and the use of on-farm research will be encouraged. Farmers 
from across the Nation will also benefit from expedited USDA decisions 
on requests for variances to their conservation compliance plans.
  The issue of good faith and unintended violations is also addressed. 
From this bill forward, good-faith infractions by the farmer will be 
treated in good faith by the Department. Those good-faith violations 
will not be subject to a penalty. For any other violation, the size of 
the penalty will equate to the size of the violation. Currently, a 
small area of noncompliance on a farm can place an entire operation at 
risk. The commonsense provisions of the Resources Enhancement Act will 
rectify that situation.
  Common sense also prevails in the sections of the bill that address 
reform of the swampbuster program. Improvements similar to the highly 
erodible section are made in swampbuster with regard to good faith 
violations and all penalties.
  This bill will also place authority for ag wetlands in its natural 
place--the Department of Agriculture. The restoration and enhancement 
of existing wetlands and creation of new wetlands will be enhanced with 
an increased emphasis on mitigation banking.

[[Page S 16503]]

  The Resource Enhancement Act also ensures that the wetlands reserve 
program will be continued through 2002. This program allows for 20- or 
30-year easements for wetlands or water quality to be placed on 
agricultural lands.
  The broad scope of resource conservation needs are addressed in this 
bill while recognizing the ongoing voluntary efforts of farmers and 
ranchers and maintaining a respect for private property rights. These 
resource needs are best addressed by continued voluntary efforts in 
this time of declining Federal resources. It makes sense that the 
regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers are decreasing, since the 
level of past farm program payments is also declining.
  I commend Senators Dole, Grassley, and Lugar for their efforts in 
crafting this bill and urge our other colleagues to join us in 
supporting the Resources Enhancement Act of 1995.
                                                                    ____



             By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Kempthorne):

  S. 1374. A bill to require adoptiion of a management plan for the 
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of 
motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


 HELL'S CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOATING AMENDMENTS LEGISLATION

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, public Law 94-199, designating the Hells 
Canyon National Recreation Area, was signed into law December 31, 1975.
  Section 10 of the act instructs the Secretary to promulgate such 
rules and regulations as he deems necessary to accomplish the purposes 
of the act, including a ``provision for the control of the use and 
number of motorized and nonmotorized river craft: Provided, That the 
use of such craft is hereby recognized as a valid use of the Snake 
River within the recreation area--''.
  This language seems clear. However, the original intent of the act, 
the compromises and promises that allowed its passage, seem to have 
been forgotten or clouded with time. Assurances 20 years ago that long-
established and traditional uses, such as motorized boating, are a 
valid use of the river and would be continued with the support of 
people who would otherwise have opposed the legislation. Yet, as the 
original participants disappear from the scene and new players arrive, 
these arrangements are being callously disregarded.
  Throughout the process leading to designation and the ensuing 
management planning efforts, the USDA--Forest Service has exhibited a 
bias against motorized river craft. During hearings on the act, 
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Long testified on a proposed 
amendment that would have authorized the Forest Service to prohibit jet 
boats. He noted that there were ``times when boating perhaps should be 
prohibited entirely''. Senator Church responded to that testimony 
unfavorably, explaining:

       . . . jet boats have been found to be the preferred method 
     of travel by a great many people who have gone into the 
     canyon. This is a matter of such importance that Congress 
     itself should decide what the guidelines would be with 
     respect to regulation of traffic on the river and that the 
     discretion ought not to be left entirely to the 
     administrative agencies.

  In a clear indication of Congress' intentions, the jet boat ban was 
not adopted.
  Later, in its first version of a comprehensive management plan in 
1981, the Forest Service attempted to bypass congressional intent by 
eliminating power boating from the heart of Hells Canyon for the entire 
primary recreation season, granting exclusive use of the river from 
Wild Sheep Rapid to Rush Creek Rapid to those using nonmotorized river 
craft. Responding to public outrage, the Chief reconsidered his 
decision, and issued a new plan allowing access to the entire river for 
a very limited number of powered craft. On appeal, Assistant Secretary 
Crowell overturned this decision, allowing unlimited day use by 
powerboats and citing failure on the part of the Forest Service to 
demonstrate a need for such severe restrictions.

  More recently, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor Robert 
Richmond initiated a review and revision of the river management 
portion of the comprehensive management plan. Despite the lack of any 
demonstrable resource problems, and in the face of overwhelming public 
support for motorized river craft, the agency again decided to close 
part of the river to powerboats. The new river management plan adopted 
in November 1994 would have closed the heart of the canyon to motorized 
river craft for 3 days a week in July and August, the peak of the 
recreation season. In response to the many appeals received, a stay was 
granted by the regional Forester, avoiding a disastrous implementation 
of the new plan in 1995.
  However, the regional forester's eventual decision on the substance 
of the appeals made clear that he supports the concept of a partial 
closure of the river to motorized river craft. The agency's intent to 
pursue a closure is quite evident. Even a partial closure is 
objectionable, as it is contrary to the intent of the law and the 
history of the river.
  The Snake River is different from most rivers in the Wild and Scenic 
System. It is a high-volume river with a long and colorful history of 
use by motorized river craft. The first paying passengers to travel up 
through its rapids on a motor boat made their journey on the 110-foot 
Colonel Wright in 1865, and a memorable journey that was. Later, the 
136-foot Shoshone made its plunge through the canyon from Boise to 
Lewiston in 1870 and was followed by the 165-foot Norma in 1895. 
Gasoline-powered craft began hauling people, produce, and supplies in 
and out of the canyon in 1910, and the first contract for regular mail 
delivery was signed in 1919, continuing today. The Corps of Engineers 
began blasting rocks and improving channels in 1903. They worked 
continuously until 1975 to make the river safer for navigation.
  Today the vast majority of people--over 80 percent--who recreate in 
the Hells Canyon segment of the Snake River access it by motorized 
river craft. Some are private boaters, and others travel with 
commercial operators on scenic tours. This access is accomplished with 
a minimum of impact to the river, the land, or their resources. Most 
river users, motorized and nonmotorized, are willing to share the 
river. However, a small group of nonmotorized users objects to seeing 
powered craft. Those unwilling to share have a rich choice of 
alternatives in this geographic area, such as the Selway and Middle 
Fork of the Salmon rivers. Motorized users, however, don't have that 
luxury. The only other white water rivers open to them in the Wild and 
Scenic System are portions of the Rogue and Salmon rivers. Without a 
single doubt, the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River is our 
Nation's premier white water power boating river.
  Mr. President, as you can see, the use of motorized river craft is 
deeply interwoven in the history, traditions, and culture of Hells 
Canyon. That is why Congress deliberately created a nonwilderness 
corridor for the entire length of the river. That is why Congress tried 
to make it clear that use of both motorized and nonmotorized river 
craft are valid uses of the river within the recreation area--the 
entire river for the entire year. It was not the intent of Congress to 
allow the managing agency to decide that one valid use would prevail to 
the exclusive use over the other.
  Quite clearly, the issue of power boating's validity will not be 
settled unless decided by the courts or unless Public Law 94-199 is 
clarified by Congress. The courts are already burdened by too many 
cases of this type, resulting in a waste of time, energy, and financial 
resources for both the United States and its citizens. The only 
practical and permanent resolution of this issue is to clarify 
congressional intent in a manner that will not allow any future 
misunderstanding. This is what I propose to do with this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. McConnell, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. 
        Kempthorne):
  S. 1375. A bill to preserve and strengthen the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program of the Department of Agriculture, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


     the foreign market development cooperator program act of 1995

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today together with Senators Craig, 

[[Page S 16504]]

Gorton, Grassley, McConnell, Daschle, Harkin, and Kerrey of Nebraska to 
introduce legislation that will preserve and strengthen the Foreign 
Market Development Cooperator Program of the Department of Agriculture.
  In an effort to balance the budget by the year 2002, Congress has had 
to make some very difficult decisions. Whatever the final outcome of 
this process in budget reconciliation the fact remains that the 
American farmer will be asked to move into a market-oriented farm 
policy. Therefore it has become crystal clear that we must open up our 
thinking and provide our farmers access to international markets.
  Changes that have resulted from the Uruguay round of GATT and the 
growing privatization of importing regimes in overseas markets demand 
that export programs be instituted that meet current needs and futures 
challenges. Such programs should reflect not only the successes we have 
had in the past, but they must also be dynamic and flexible enough to 
build on these gains.
  One program that has stood the test of time is the Foreign Market 
Development Program, also known as the Cooperator Program. Amendments 
to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and 
the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 authorized market development 
activities and the use of Federal funds to develop, maintain, and 
expand foreign markets for U.S. agriculture commodities. It was 
determined by the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service that this could 
best be accomplished by private, nonprofit agricultural organizations. 
These organizations have been required to share in the financial 
expense of the market development activities.
  In 1988, Congress stated,

       It is the sense of Congress that the foreign market 
     development Cooperator Program of the Service, and the 
     activities of the individual foreign market development 
     cooperator organizations, have been among the most successful 
     and cost-effective means to expand United States agricultural 
     exports. Congress affirms its support for the program and the 
     activities of the cooperator organizations. The Administrator 
     and the private sector should work together to ensure that 
     the program, and the activities of cooperator organizations, 
     are expanded in the future.

  While Congress has provided full funding through the regular 
appropriations process every year since the Cooperator Program's 
development in 1954, we have provided little statutory direction to the 
USDA and the Foreign Agricultural Service. Congress has simply 
established broad goals for market development programs. As a result, 
the Foreign Agricultural Service has been given wide discretion in 
establishing programs and funding.
  Mr. President, this arrangement has been highly successful for a 
number of years. Unfortunately, in recent years the Cooperator Program 
has fallen victim to the intense competition within FAS for fewer 
discretionary funds. This has led to FAS requesting cuts in the program 
as a means of funding other FAS activities. Due to the success of this 
program, Congress has decided that these funds should continue and has 
stated such to the Foreign Agricultural Service. This year that 
administration proposed a budget that would have reduced the funding 
for the Cooperator Program by 20 percent.
  A reduction of this magnitude would have meant a U.S. retreat from 
international markets at a time when the Foreign Agricultural Service 
has testified that the resources and staff of nonprofit commodity were 
less than adequate. This is to say that our nonprofit agricultural 
organizations were not able to meet the challenges and changes in the 
international market place. On the more meaningful level, this would 
have meant fewer opportunities for the producers in the world market.
  As a member of the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee I can 
tell you what we took this seriously and restored full finding for the 
program this year. But we grow weary of the continued assault on such a 
successful program. It is a practice that must stop. This bill will 
stop this, by establishing a separate identity for the Foreign 
Market Development Cooperator Program from that of FAS.

  The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program is not only one of 
the oldest export programs, but it is also one of the most essential 
and effective. In fiscal year 1994, cooperators expended $29.8 million 
of FAS funds on the market development program. Cooperators reported 
additional contributions of $30 million. These cooperators conducted 
more than 1,000 individual market development activities in over 100 
countries. The private sector funding assists in reducing the deficit 
while maintaining our presence in overseas markets. The involvement of 
the private sector also creates incentives for effective programs as it 
is their own producer dollars at stake. This has created an incentive-
based program that FAS has stated that the combined cooperator and 
foreign third party contributions have exceeded the FAS contribution 
every year.
  The cooperator program has been long regarded as a model of public-
private sector cooperation. FAS has recently stated that the market 
development cooperator program has played an important role in 
increasing U.S. agricultural exports to the approximately $43.5 billion 
in fiscal year 1994.
  According to a senior FAS official, the cooperator program is the 
mainstay of market development activities. Cooperators are by 
definition nonprofit, agricultural trade associations which represent 
farmers and farm-related interests. Cooperators participating include 
representatives from the feed grains, wheat, soybean, rice, cotton, 
poultry, meat, and forest products as well as many others.
  High-volume commodities, like grains, rarely lend themselves to 
traditional consumer promotion programs, but rely instead on working 
directly with end-users and processors on a regular basis. Cooperator 
projects are suited to trade servicing activities such as the 
collection and dissemination of market facts; training programs; and 
demonstrations or technical seminars on product uses to producers, 
processors, manufacturers, and consumers. This focus requires a 
continual presence in the overseas market which is essential for the 
United States to remain competitive. Regular contact with the customer 
is necessary to follow shifts in the rapidly changing world market.
  In my State of Montana, where we export up to 70 percent of the grain 
that we grow, programs of this nature are extremely important. In 
recent times when we have signed agreements with the world to place our 
family farmers in the world market it has become increasingly important 
that we provide them with tools to compete in these markets. I have 
stated many times that the American farmer is more than willing to 
compete with any and all farmers around the world. But we have placed 
them at a disadvantage by making them compete with the governments of 
other countries. This is a program that will provide them with a tool 
to use in the world market.
  Throughout my time here in Washington I have fought for programs that 
will add dollars to the pockets of the small family farmers in Montana 
and the United States. This program in its design does this, whether it 
be a corn or soybean farmer in Iowa or a wheat and barley farmer in my 
state of Montana. Development of this type would also benefit the 
livestock producer in any area of our Nation. It might be a cotton 
producer in Mississippi or Texas, or maybe a rice farmer in Arkansas, 
or maybe even a small timber operator in Washington and Idaho. Whatever 
or wherever it is that they come from, by using their matching funds 
these cooperators have an investment and will see that they get a 
return on their funds. They will in turn see additional dollars for 
their products and will compete fully in the world market.
  The future of this program is bright, and this legislation will make 
it only more of a reality. The unique resources that the nonprofit 
agriculture organizations bring to this cooperative program enhance the 
future of the exports we now have in agriculture. Recent developments 
in communications technologies hold promise for greatly enhancing the 
ability of cooperator organizations to communicate with their 
counterparts around the country and, for that matter, the rest of the 
world.
  Mr. President, in light of the current trend of placing our family 
farmers on 

[[Page S 16505]]

the world market, and with the pressure to open the safety net which 
protects our food supply, I find it imperative that Congress act to 
give our rural families this tool to work within the world market. This 
one tool will send a message to the country and the world that we are 
working to keep our family farms strong and vital operations within our 
economic structure. This message will allow the Department of 
Agriculture to focus on the opportunities that these cooperative 
efforts between the public and private sector can and will produce.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to invite my 
colleagues to join me in this effort to provide an opportunity to the 
rural families in this country to meet the rest of the world on the 
field of grain and agriculture with the tools that will help them be 
successful.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Cooperator Program Act exemplifies the 
export-based marketing that must occur if American agriculture is to 
lead the world into the 21st century. I am very proud to cosponsor this 
bill that will extend an extremely successful program. It is also my 
desire to lead the efforts on the Senate Agriculture Committee to 
include this bill as an important provision of the trade title of the 
1995 farm bill.
  The Cooperator Program is part of the Foreign Market Development 
Program as currently administered by the Foreign Agriculture Service of 
USDA. The cooperators in Foreign Market Development Program are 
regarded by many as a cost-effective and successful partnership that 
has expanded agriculture exports.
  Idaho wheat producers especially rely on foreign market developments 
and the exports for their economic well-being. In fact, Idaho's wheat 
producers collectively export between 75 and 80 percent of their 
production every year. In 1994, the production, marketing and 
exportation of Idaho's wheat provided over 30,000 jobs and $1.09 
billion in economic revenue in Idaho and the rest of the Pacific 
Northwest.
  The Cooperator Program Act of 1995 will strengthen the foreign market 
development efforts of the past by creating a separate line-item 
authorization for future annual appropriations process.
  I commend Senator Burns for his efforts to introduce this legislation 
and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues 
Senators Burns, Craig, Grassley, McConnell, Daschle, Harkin, and 
Kerrey, as an original cosponsor of the Cooperator Program Act of 1995.
  The Foreign Market Development [FMD] Cooperator Program has been 
administered by USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service since 1954 without 
specific legislative authorization. Today we are introducing 
legislation that will provide the necessary authorization to maintain, 
preserve, and strengthen the FMD Cooperator Program. The FMD Cooperator 
Program has proven to be an effective, efficient, cost-shared program, 
providing trade service and technical assistance for U.S. agriculture 
commodities in overseas markets. This legislation will ensure that the 
FMD Cooperator Program is better able to compete for a limited number 
of discretionary dollars during the annual appropriations process.
  Many important developments have taken place since the completion of 
the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. 
I believe that GATT will continue to open new world markets for the 
United States so programs like FMD are even more important to give U.S. 
agriculture the tools necessary to develop, maintain, and expand 
commercial export markets for U.S. agriculture commodities in this new 
post-GATT environment.
  As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have 
made funding for export programs my top priority. I am convinced that 
the Foreign Market Development Program, Market Promotion Program and 
the like are absolutely necessary if U.S. Agriculture is to remain 
competitive in the international marketplace. It is also in the best 
interest of the agriculture community specifically to authorize the FMD 
Cooperator Program. This kind of oversight will ensure that the 
agriculture community will continue to receive the full benefits of 
this program.
  Since 1955, U.S. agriculture exports have increased from $3 billion 
to $43.5 billion in fiscal year 1994, and are projected to reach a 
record high of $51.1 billion during fiscal year 1995. USDA has stated 
that for each dollar of taxpayer money spent on the FMD, 7 dollars' 
worth of exports are generated, and this figure continues to grow. It 
is now every day that we appropriate Federal dollars and get a return 
on our investment as large and as significant as we do with the FMD.
  In lieu of the reduction or phaseout of USDA's commodity price 
support programs, it seems only right to provide the agriculture 
community with the tools necessary to compete in the international 
marketplace. As I travel around my State of Washington I listen closely 
to the comments, suggestions, and concerns from my State's agriculture 
community.
  The message has been clear: Strengthen, maintain, and preserve the 
tools necessary for us to export our products. In response to these 
comments, I believe that this legislation is the key to maintaining 
export programs important to so many in Washington State and across the 
Nation.
  I would also like to acknowledge the overwhelming support we have 
received from the following State's wheat commissions. Washington, 
Idaho, Oregon, Nebraska, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and 
Wyoming. Among other associations we have received support from 
include: Washington Education Trade Economic Committee, National 
Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates, USA Dry Pea and 
Lentil Council, National Barley Growers Association, National Council 
of Farmer Cooperatives, Western U.S. Agriculture Trade Association, 
National Corn Growers Association, National Dry Bean Council, American 
Seed Trade Association, USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, American 
Soybean Association, National Cotton Council, National Peanut Council 
of America, and National Sunflower Association. Clearly, Mr. President, 
this legislation has a tremendous amount of support from U.S. 
agriculture nationwide.
  Mr. President, in closing I invite my colleagues to join me as 
cosponsors of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a letter 
of support from the Washington State Wheat Commission be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  Washington Wheat Commission,

                                    Spokane, WA, October 12, 1995.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: Exports are the life blood of the 
     Washington wheat industry. Approximately 85 percent of all 
     Washington's wheat production finds it way into the export 
     market. Wheat is the number one agricultural export commodity 
     from our state, which results in a major contribution to our 
     state's economy and a major supplier of employment. Due to 
     the importance of wheat exports, I would like to ask your 
     support for a continuation and strengthening of the Foreign 
     Market Development Program (FMD) of the USDA.
       Currently the FMD program is administered by the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service (FAS), USDA, and as Congress has already 
     stated, ``the FMD program, and the activities of individual 
     foreign market development Cooperator organizations, have 
     been among the most successful and cost-effective means to 
     expand United States' agricultural exports.''
       Unfortunately, in recent years the cooperator program has 
     fallen victim to the intense competition within FAS for fewer 
     and fewer discretionary dollars. The FAS, with direct 
     responsibility over the operation and funding of the program, 
     has requested cuts in the program arguing that the 
     ``savings'' be used to fund certain FAS activities. For this 
     reason, we are asking that you support a separate line item 
     in the budget for the FMD program.
       There is no question that the FMD program is one of the 
     most successful joint government-private funded activities in 
     existence. It is time to give FMD some sunlight and expose it 
     to the annual budgetary process. We welcome the opportunity 
     to tell its success stories during the budgetary debates, 
     and, at the same time, protect it from the predatory measures 
     FAS has employed. FAS is currently arguing against a special 
     line item for FMD stating that it will inhibit flexibility in 
     the program. The only flexibility that will be hurt by this 
     measure is that FAS will no longer have access to the funds.

[[Page S 16506]]

       For the first few years on the new program, we ask that you 
     support a minimum allocation of $40 million to the FMD 
     program.
       Thank you, in advance, for taking this issue under 
     consideration. If you have any questions or need 
     clarification on any issue concerning the request, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James R. Walesby,
                                                         Chairman.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 1376. A bill to terminate unnecessary and inequitable Federal 
corporate subsidies; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


 the corporate subsidy review reform and termination commission act of 
                                  1995

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Federal Government operates numerous 
programs which provide direct payments, services and other benefits to 
various sectors of private industry. Some of these may serve a valuable 
purpose. Others, however, have long outlived their usefulness and have 
no place in a budget wherein we are asking Americans across the board 
to sacrifice on behalf of deficit reduction. Congress can no longer 
delay taking action to correct this inequity.

  Recently, the CATO Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute 
reported that the Federal Government spends as much as $85 billion per 
year on programs like these. The Progressive Policy Institute has 
identified an additional $30 billion per year in inequitable tax 
loopholes. Many here in Congress have identified still other sources of 
waste. Together, these programs and policies have rightfully earned the 
moniker ``corporate pork.''
  Yet even when these programs have been consistently determined to 
provide little or no benefit to the taxpayer, Congress has found it 
exceedingly difficult to reduce or eliminate them.
  Pressure to maintain the status quo can come in many forms: 
institutional pressure to maintain that which is considered consistent 
with the interests of one party or another; political pressure to 
maintain programs or policies that are favorable to particular 
constituencies; and special interest pressure that may come to bear in 
a variety of shapes and forms when a member or small group of members 
seeks to modify these programs.
  In order to override these elusive yet firmly entrenched political 
obstacles, this amendment establishes a one-time, nonpartisan 
commission--styled along the lines of the successful Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission [BRAC]--charged with reforming corporate 
subsidies.
  When all is said and done, the BRAC's work will yield billions of 
dollars in savings by identifying the waste in just one department. The 
American public will get to enjoy the fruit of BRAC's labors largely 
due to the fact that the Commission was able to operate in an 
environment completely devoid of the pressures I have just described.
  By applying similar methods to examine the programs and policies of 
the entire Federal Government, Congress may be able to build on this 
record of success, saving even more for the taxpayers of this nation.
  The structure and operations of this commission may seem quite 
familiar to those who followed the BRAC proceedings. Commissioners will 
be nominated, appointed, and confirmed in the same manner. They will 
begin their work in January 1997 and report to the President by July. 
The Commission will work closely with each Federal agency to identify 
programs and tax provisions which are no longer necessary to serve the 
purpose for which they were intended. They will also identify programs 
which unduly benefit a narrow corporate interest rather than providing 
clear and convincing public benefits. And, most importantly, they will 
operate as a nonpartisan, a-political body--using only the guidelines 
we will establish with this amendment--to guide their actions.
  By the summer of 1997, the Commission will provide the President and 
Congress recommendations for termination or specific modification of 
programs that satisfy these conditions.
  I would like to emphasize that this bill's goals do not include 
increasing revenues or creating new taxes; the Commission will simply 
formulate recommendations to reform those programs or policies that 
result in inequitable financial advantages for special interest groups. 
Every dollar spent on an unnecessary program or lost through in 
inequitable tax loophole is one more that is not available for much 
needed broad-based tax relief.
  Congress' role in this process will, however, differ somewhat from 
that which it plays under BRAC. In this case, enacting the Commission's 
recommendations may result in changes to Federal statute. Therefore, 
the Congress will be required to take positive action; a vote to accept 
or reject proposed changes in law--unlike BRAC which was accepted as 
law by default through Congress' inaction. Finally, in order to ensure 
that this stage of the process does not present opportunities for 
parochial interests to influence the process, disciplined and expedited 
procedures, similar to those used for congressional consideration of 
the budget, will be utilized.
  It is evident that Congress has as much difficulty closing loopholes 
as it does closing unnecessary military bases. I, like many of my 
colleagues, have come to this floor on numerous occasions to offer 
arguments against the type of waste generated by the programs this 
amendment seeks to eliminate or reform. Like many of my colleagues, I 
have also been unsuccessful in the vast majority of these efforts. 
Regrettably, time, experience, and the lessons of history leave me 
highly skeptical that a spontaneous awakening is likely to occur here 
in Congress.
  Therefore, despite my own reservations about passing along 
congressional responsibilities to outside commissions, I feel it is 
clearly time to institute alternative solutions. The taxpayers of this 
Nation do not deserve to wait any longer for us to get this right. For 
this reason, I think the most--or perhaps the least--we can expect from 
this body is that we collectively recognize this problem, and employ a 
logical and fair technique to help us solve it. The Commission proposed 
by this legislation provides an expedient opportunity to institute 
positive, meaningful change.
  I am pleased and encouraged by the bipartisan cosponsorship of this 
bill, and am hopeful that the divergence of philosophies represented by 
this group is an indication of wide support within Congress for this 
measure.
  I urge all of my colleagues to examine this legislation, consider the 
circumstances that have caused it to come about, and join myself and 
the cosponsors of this bill in giving life to a solution. I can see no 
rational reason to oppose this bill, and more reasons than we have time 
to present to support it.
  Stand up for the American taxpayer, stand up for change, and stand in 
defiance of business as usual.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, the Corporate Subsidy Termination 
Commission Act which my colleagues and I are introducing today will 
take us one step further on the road to fairness in Government.
  This Congress has done a thorough and, I believe, admirable job of 
examining thousands of items of Government spending. We have identified 
areas of spending which should be reformed because they don't work as 
they should. And we have identified those which should be terminated 
because their existence cannot be justified. Some areas, such as the 
Federal welfare program, have been completely transformed. In each case 
we have asked several questions: Does this spending promote a useful 
public purpose? if so, can Government afford it? Should the effort and 
the money for it be transferred to the State or local level, where it 
is closer to those it is supposed to benefit?
  As part of this process we have examined some programs whose primary 
beneficiaries are profitmaking enterprises--businesses of all sizes. In 
several such cases we have made progress on incremental reforms. For 
instance, the Senate passed an amendment to restrict the Marketing 
Promotion Program through which $110 million is spent annually to 
underwrite advertising by some of our largest corporations in foreign 
countries. In addition, the program under which the Government leases 
mineral rights on public lands to private companies is being reformed 
to 

[[Page S 16507]]

allow the Government to charge fees more in line with real values.
  But these efforts and others that are ongoing are necessarily 
piecemeal. We can cut or restrict a corporate subsidy here, and leave 
another one untouched.
  Last week, as part of an effort to highlight the issue of Federal 
subsidies to profitmaking enterprises, a bipartisan group of colleagues 
and I proposed ending 12 specific items of corporate pork. These items 
were chosen from Federal spending programs which are characterized by 
some element of corporate subsidization. They affected areas including 
public resource management, energy development, export promotion, local 
construction, utility loans, sale of public airwaves, tourism 
promotion, defense construction, and aircraft design. They were only a 
sampling of all such programs--the Cato Institute recently identified 
129 items characterized as corporate pork. Senator McCain offered this 
package as an amendment to the reconciliation bill, where it received 
the support of only a fourth of this Body.
  Clearly this problem needs to be attacked in a different way.
  The bill we are introducing today also has bipartisan support. It 
establishes a Corporate Subsidy Termination Commission which is charged 
with identifying programs or tax policies which provide unnecessary 
benefits or inequitable tax advantages to profitmaking enterprises. The 
Commission is fashioned after the BRAC Commission, with expedited 
legislation procedures similar to those provided for the Congressional 
Budget Resolution. I ask unanimous consent that an overview of this 
Corporate Subsidy Termination Commission be printed in the Record.

  Why establish a Commission and a new process to do what we could 
conceivably do directly?
  First, and most important, this Commission will do what we cannot do 
well: make an overall assessment of all programs, on both the spending 
and revenue sides, at one time. Over the years we have created an 
intricate, interwoven system of subsidies, taxes and exemptions. As a 
rural Tennessee utility which would be affected by the spending cuts we 
proposed last week pointed out to me, they are competing against other 
energy providers who receive subsidies in the form of tax breaks.
  Second, our experience last week demonstrated that voting hit or miss 
on individual items is not going to be successful. One person's pork is 
another's prize. And no one wants to give up their prize program if 
there isn't shared sacrifice. With the commission approach, we will 
know that all programs have been examined and those which provide 
unjustified subsidies have been exposed.
  Third, the members of the Commission will be appointed specifically 
for this purpose by the President and the Congress. They will possess 
the expertise, authority and stature necessary to do the job.
  Fourth, the commission's recommendations will not be buried in the 
corner of a Federal agency or a congressional committee. While the 
President and Congress will be able to amend or reject the Commission's 
recommendations, they must address them.
   Mr. President, we should require no less of profitmaking enterprises 
than we ask of all Americans. It is a matter of fairness and shared 
sacrifice. At a time when the national debate is focused on getting 
control of the budget, now and in the future, we cannot afford to 
provide corporate subsidies which undermine our efforts and which send 
the wrong message to American taxpayers.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform and Termination Commission

       ``The Termination Commission will do for Corporate Pork 
     what BRAC did for military infrastructure; identify and 
     terminate excess and waste!''
       The eight-members of the Commission would: be nominated by 
     the President by January 31; have six members nominated by 
     Congress; require Senate Confirmation for their appointments; 
     and identify programs or tax policies that provide 
     unnecessary benefits to for-profit enterprise, or serve the 
     pecuniary interests of an enterprise but do not provide a 
     public benefit, or; provide inequitable tax advantages to 
     for-profit enterprise.
       Federal Agencies would: Submit a list of programs which 
     meet ``corporate pork'' definitional criteria no later than 
     their budget request in January 1997; and submit 
     recommendations to the commission for termination or reform 
     of such programs.
       Commission would: Review the agencies' recommendations, 
     perform their own analysis; receive Comptroller General's 
     analysis April 15, 1997; and submit a comprehensive reform 
     proposal to the President by July 1, 1997.
       President would: Have 15 days to review the Commission's 
     recommendations; have the ability to suggest changes to the 
     Commission's package; and forward the package directly if 
     there are no changes.
       Commission would: Have until August 15 to act upon the 
     President's proposed changes; and have until August 15 to 
     reject the President's changes.
       President: Must forward Commission's revised proposal to 
     Congress by September 1. Failure to do so terminates the 
     entire process.
       Congress will: Have 20 days for Committee review in both 
     Houses; follow Budget Act expedited procedures; and have 
     limited debate and amendments.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend, the 
senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] in introducing this 
legislation. This is the most recent of several bipartisan reform 
efforts in which I have joined with Senator McCain.
  In many ways, this measure focuses on the downstream results of the 
other problems on which we have worked. Unjustified corporate 
subsidies, through direct appropriation or through the Tax Code, 
continue to prosper in part because of the influence of the special 
constituencies that benefit from those subsidies.
  But, Mr. President, these subsidies also continue to exist through 
simple inattention, and the Corporate Subsidy Commission created by 
this legislation will bring some needed scrutiny to subsidies that, 
though they may have had some merit once, are no longer justified.
  Targeting unjustified corporate subsidies would be appropriate at any 
time, but they are especially needed as we try to balance the Federal 
books. We absolutely must subject these kinds of corporate subsidies to 
tougher scrutiny than we have before.
  As with the spending we provide to individuals, nonprofits, and State 
and local governments, if we are to eliminate the Federal budget 
deficit, we need to demand a higher level of justification for 
corporate programs.
  There is no doubt that those of us who have cosponsored this 
legislation differ greatly on the total package of spending cuts we 
would propose to balance the Federal budget, as the reconciliation 
legislation this body passed dramatically demonstrates.
  But we are all united in suggesting that much more needs to be done 
in the area of corporate subsidies.
  This legislation continues the broader effort to reduce the deficit 
that I have made, and which began with an 82+ point plan to reduce the 
deficit I offered during my campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1992.
  Many of the provisions of that plan eliminated or reduced corporate 
subsidies that are no longer justified, including both direct 
appropriations and tax expenditures.
  Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that the Commission's 
mission will include the review of tax expenditures. They are a 
significant and growing portion of the Federal budget. In a June, 1994 
report, the General Accounting Office, using data from the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, stated that spending for tax expenditures 
totaled about $400 billion in 1993.
  As that report notes, spending done through tax expenditures moves 
immediately to the front of the budget line. Tax expenditures are, in 
effect, funded before the Federal Government pays for a single school 
lunch or an aircraft carrier because, under our budget process, tax 
expenditures must be funded as they are created, and with the exception 
of a few that must be reauthorized, they can grow in the absence of 
Congressional oversight.
  Mr. President, some current tax expenditures are certainly justified. 
However, the system of tax expenditures itself lacks appropriate review 
and control mechanisms, and many individual expenditures are 
unjustified.
  The result is a loss of overall economic efficiency for the Nation's 
economy, and scarce budget resources at a time when we are trying to 
balance the Federal books.

[[Page S 16508]]

  This Commission can provide needed review of inefficient and 
expensive corporate subsidies, requiring Congress to examine this 
spending in a timely manner.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 1377. A bill to provide authority for the assessment of cane sugar 
produced in the Everglades agricultural area of Florida, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                         cane sugar legislation

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
establish an Everglades restoration fund. The Everglades restoration 
fund would be financed by a 2-cent-per-pound assessment on all cane 
sugar produced in the Everglades agricultural area, Florida. It is 
estimated that a 2-cents-per-pound assessment would produce revenues of 
$70 million per year or approximately $350 million over a 5-year 
period. These funds will be used for land acquisition in the Everglades 
agricultural area.
  An Everglades restoration plan has been devised in cooperation with 
the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. 
This plan calls for 131,000 acres of land within the southern 
Everglades agricultural area to be acquired at an estimated cost of 
$355 million, assuming an acre cost of $2,700 per acre.
  I believe this plan is fair to Florida sugar producers. Because of 
the Federal sugar program, sugar prices in Florida are higher than they 
otherwise would be.
  The sugar growers in the Everglades agricultural area are also 
beneficiaries of federally subsidized water projects which created 
agricultural lands in the Everglades agricultural area and which pump 
waters in and out of these lands as needed for sugar production. It is 
reasonable for these beneficiaries to help restore the unique ecosystem 
that these projects have degraded.
  I am aware of the fact that the State of Florida has enacted the 
Everglades Forever Act, which imposes a tax of $25 to $35 per acre over 
20 years to raise a total of $322 million to improve water quality.
  Sugar producers have also agreed to take other steps designed to 
improve water quality. These steps include compliance with phosphorous 
discharge standards and the creation of stormwater treatment areas to 
help filter phosphorous discharges and for other purposes. However, 
these measures are primarily related to improving water quality in the 
Everglades. My proposal is designed to restore the ecosystem to a 
natural condition with regard to water flows.
  No more important or complex ecosystem in need of restoration exists 
in our Nation than the Everglades in south Florida. It is a troubled 
system, on the brink of collapse, largely caused by federally supported 
drainage construction designed to promote and protect agriculture. This 
problem is exacerbated by the Federal sugar program. Failure to act 
will doom the Everglades to accelerated deterioration, a tragic and 
totally unacceptable fate.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to restore 
the Everglades and to bring assurances to homeowners in Florida, to 
bring assurances to those who fear the end of the coral in the Keys, 
who are disturbed by the algae in the Florida Bay, and who, in fact, 
appreciate that a fine balance is created here between benefits given 
to the sugar producers and an assessment that will make all the 
difference in the restoration of the Everglades.
  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. 1377

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

     SEC. 1 EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA.

       Section 206 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1446g) is amended--
       (a) in subsection (i)--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as (C);
       (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (D) by inserting a new subparagraph (C) that reads as 
     follows:
       ``(C) in the case of marketings from production from the 
     Everglades Agricultural Area of Florida as determined by the 
     Secretary, in addition to assessments under subparagraph B, 
     the sum of 2 cents per pound of raw cane sugar for each of 
     the 1996 through 2000 fiscal years;''
       (b) redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
       (c) by inserting a new subsection (j) that reads as 
     follows:
       ``(j) Everglades Agricultural Area Account--
       (1) In general.--
       ``(A) Account.--The Secretary shall establish an Everglades 
     Agricultural Area Account as an account of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation.''
       ``(B) Area.--The Secretary shall determine the extent of 
     the Everglades Agricultural Area of Florida for the purposes 
     of subsection (i)(1)(C) and subparagraph (C).''
       ``(C) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The funds collected 
     from the assessment provided in subsection (i)(1)(C) shall be 
     paid into the Everglades Agricultural Area Account of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation, and shall be available until 
     expended.''
       ``(D) Purposes.--The Secretary is authorized and directed 
     to transfer funds from the Everglades Agricultural Area 
     Account to the South Florida Water Management District or 
     other appropriate public entities for the purpose of 
     purchasing agricultural lands in the Everglades Agricultural 
     Area of Florida and for other related purposes.''

                          ____________________