[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8582-H8583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Agriculture be discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3900) to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to provide 
greater planting flexibility, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for an explanation of the 
bill.
  Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3900 is a short and simple bill to address two 
problems related to the implementation of the 1996 farm bill, or the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act. This bill has been the 
subject of many staff discussions between Republicans and Democrats on 
the House Agriculture Committee and with staff of the Department of 
Agriculture. I have personally visited with my good friend, Secretary 
Dan Glickman, about the first part of this bill and he supports making 
this change.
  The first part of the bill simply allows farmers to plant a secondary 
crop of fruits or vegetables on their farm program acreage following a 
crop which has failed earlier in the year. This practice, referred to 
as ghost acres, has been allowed for several years but is being 
disallowed this year due to the interpretation of the new farm bill by 
USDA. Allowing this practice clarifies the intent of Congress and does 
not violate the spirit of any agreements made on the issue of planting 
flexibility under the new farm bill.
  It is unfortunate that the passage of this legislation has become 
necessary and many of us believe that this problem could have been more 
easily resolved by a more appropriate interpretation of this provision 
by USDA. Language very similar to this was recently inserted into the 
Agriculture appropriations bill on the Senator floor. However, 
enactment of this change is needed now to allow farmers to get their 
crops into the field immediately.
  The second provision of H.R. 3900 requires the issuance of new 
regulations by the Department of Agriculture for the Conservation 
Reserve Program by September 15. This requirement is needed because 
rural Americans have already waited too long to hear what the details 
of the new CRP program will be and need to make decisions as to the 
future use of their land.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has bipartisan support in both Houses of 
Congress and I urge its immediate adoption.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 contains a provision under section 118 which 
prohibits the planting of most fruit and vegetable crops on contract 
acreage, with three narrow exceptions. The primary intent of this 
provision is to prevent the subsidization of fruit and vegetable 
production in competition with traditionally nonsubsidized producers of 
these crops, yet allow for the same flexibility to plant fruits, 
vegetables, or other commodities as was allowed in the last farm bill, 
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Rather than 
leave the issue open for interpretation, this bill more clearly defines 
the parameters under which farmers can plant a second crop without 
incurring an acre-for-acre reduction in their market transition 
payment.
  In Texas, blackeyed peas are historically grown on failed cotton 
acreage. They make for an excellent followup crop to cotton compared to 
other crops, because they more readily adapt to the herbicides used in 
cotton planting. More importantly, blackeyed peas allow producers an 
opportunity to grow a crop that: First, requires considerably less 
water during times of drought; second, serves as an excellent ground 
cover, even if they only get a few weeks growth; third, assists with 
fertilization for next year's crop by contributing nitrogen to the 
soil, and fourth, provides lenders additional incentive to work with 
difficult credit situations like many farmers are experiencing now. 
Most States have similar cropping substitutes. Maybe it goes without 
saying, but every true Texan knows that any good luck throughout the 
year can easily be traced back to those traditional servings of 
blackeyed peas on New Year's Day. If this year's farm bill is really 
about flexibility, it is important that producers who operate outside 
those counties currently designated as double cropping regions, but who 
have traditionally been able to plant a commodity in lieu of a failed 
program crop, continue to have that opportunity. I am confident that it 
was not the plan by the authors of this farm bill to prohibit or 
restrict planting options relative to the past, and I feel certain that 
their aim was, at a bare minimum, to maintain the producer's freedom to 
farm his land at 1990 levels.
  With the passing of this bill, we also encourage the Secretary of 
Agriculture to provide specific guidance to those producers who are 
considering bringing their land back into production from the 
Conservation Reserve Program. I understand the excessive workload that 
the Department is facing in issuing all the rules and regulations 
associated with this farm bill's implementation and the staffs of all 
those agencies involved should be commended for the long hours and 
headaches they have endured this summer--but it is very important that 
the eligibility requirements be determined and announced as soon as is 
reasonably possible so that CRP contract holders can know what to 
expect.
  I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3900.
  This bill will give the U.S. Department of Agriculture much needed 
direction in the interpretation of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
and Reform Act of 1996--FAIR Act--which we passed earlier this year.
  H.R. 3900 is very simple. First, it reaffirms the Department's 
ability to continue the practice of ghost acres. Under prior farm 
bills, producers who suffered a natural disaster could plant a second 
crop of their choosing without having any impact on their participation 
in commodity programs. This practice allowed producers the ability to 
try to recoup some of their losses when Mother Nature was in an unkind 
mood.
  The second provision in H.R. 3900 will require the Department to 
issue regulations by

[[Page H8583]]

September 15, 1996 to implement the Conservation Reserve Program which 
was amended by the FAIR Act. Producers and landowners in many parts of 
the country are wondering what the parameters of the new program will 
be and this provision will spur the Department on to work out the new 
regulations in a timely fashion.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3900 which 
requires the USDA to publish its regulations governing the Conservation 
Reserve Program by September 1, 1996. Since its inception in 1985, the 
CRP has been a valuable tool for America's farmers. The CRP allows 
producers to protect fragile, highly erodible land from further 
deterioration by signing contracts to remove the land from production 
and place it under a managed conservation practice in exchange for 
fixed annual payments. While the CRP has achieved considerable 
reductions in wind erosion, it also provides excellent wildlife habitat 
for pheasants, quail, and other animals that inhabit the American 
plains.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the regulations governing the future 
of the CRP have been repeatedly delayed by the USDA. Farmers need to 
know all of the details of the Federal agricultural policies that 
affect their ability to make commonsense farm management and production 
decisions. For weeks I have been hopeful that the USDA would issue its 
policy guidelines regarding the future of the CRP so that farmers could 
have full knowledge of the rules that will govern their program 
participation before they signed up for the 7-year farm program.
  Unfortunately, in the more than 3 months that have passed since the 
new farm bill was enacted, USDA has provided only the barest of 
details. While the USDA has allowed CRP contract holders to extend 
their contracts for an additional year, farmers have no certainty 
regarding the long-term future of the CRP. With the world currently 
experiencing a grain supply shortage, many farmers worry that the CRP 
will be abandoned completely. At the same time, others worry that 
continuing to extend the CRP on a year-to-year basis discourages 
farmers from doing what they do best--feed a hungry and troubled world.
  Mr. Speaker, farmers need long-term guidance from the USDA so they 
can make crucial production decisions. The new farm bill required that 
the USDA publish its CRP regulations within 90 days of passage--they 
are already 2 weeks pass that deadline. With farmers already preparing 
to plant next year's wheat crop this fall, it is important that they 
know what the CRP rules will be both for next year and for the years to 
come.
  The CRP debate has dragged on for long enough. America's farmers 
deserved an answer long before now. They should not have to wait any 
longer.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

                             {time}   1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 3900

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Sec. 1 Increased Planting Flexibility.--Section 118 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7218) is amended 
     by adding the following new paragraph to subsection (b)(2):
       ``(D) by a producer on contract acreage following a crop 
     that fails due to conditions beyond the producer's 
     control.''.
       Sec. 2. Conforming Amendment.--Subsection 118(b)(2) is 
     amended:
       (a) in paragraph (B), by striking ``or''; and
       (b) in clause (ii) of paragraph (C), by striking 
     ``vegetable.'' and inserting ``vegetable; or''.
       Sec. 3. Conservation Reserve Program Regulations.--Not 
     later than September 15, 1996, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to implement the Conservation Reserve Program (16 
     U.S.C. 3831 et seq.), as amended by section 332 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. 
     L. 104-127, April 4, 1996).


                    amendment offered by mr. combest

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Combest:
       On page 2 Line 7 strike ``in'' and insert ``at the end 
     of''.

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I would just mention this is strictly 
technical. It is to further clarify in the amendment a 
misinterpretation that had been earlier made, and it is purely 
technical and clarifying in nature.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________