[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1935-H1938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EXPIRING CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM CONTRACTS

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1342) to provide for a 1-year enrollment in the 
conservation reserve of land covered by expiring conservation reserve 
program contracts, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1342

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

     SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR ENROLLMENT OF LAND COVERED BY EXPIRING 
                   CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM CONTRACTS.

       (a) Eligible Farm Lands.--This section applies with respect 
     to a farm containing land covered by a conservation reserve 
     program contract expiring during fiscal year 1997 if--
       (1) the farm had a crop acreage base for wheat, oats, or 
     barley at the time the conservation reserve program contract 
     was executed;
       (2) the farm is located in an area in which fall-seeded 
     crops are regularly planted, as determined by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture;
       (3) the owner of the farm (or the operator with the consent 
     of the owner) submitted, during the enrollment period that 
     ended on March 28, 1997, an eligible bid to enroll all or 
     part of the land covered by the expiring contract in the 
     conservation reserve established under subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.); and
       (4) the land designated in the bid satisfies the 
     eligibility criteria in effect for enrollment of land in the 
     conservation reserve.

[[Page H1936]]

       (b) One-Year Enrollment Authorized.--
       (1) Authority of owner or operator.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (g), the owner or operator of a farm described in 
     subsection (a) may enroll in the conservation reserve for a 
     one-year term to begin on October 1, 1997, the land covered 
     by the expiring conservation reserve program contract and 
     included in the owner's or operator's enrollment bid (as 
     described in subsection (a)(3)) if--
       (A) the owner or operator notifies the Secretary in 
     writing, during the special notification period required 
     under paragraph (2), that the owner or operator desires to 
     enroll the land in the conservation reserve for one year 
     under this section; and
       (B) the Secretary does not accept, before October 1, 1997, 
     the owner's or operator's enrollment bid (as described in 
     subsection (a)(3)) to enroll the land in a long-term 
     conservation reserve program contract.
       (2) Special notification period.--Promptly upon the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide a special 
     period for owners and operators of farms described in 
     subsection (a) to permit the owners and operators to provide 
     the notification required under paragraph (1)(A) to enter 
     into one-year conservation reserve program contracts under 
     this section.
       (c) Rental Rate.--The rental rate for a one-year 
     conservation reserve program contract under subsection (b) 
     shall be equal to the amount of the bid (as described in 
     subsection (a)(3)) that the owner or operator submitted 
     with respect to the land to be covered by the one-year 
     contract.
       (d) Effect of One-Year Contract on Subsequent Enrollment.--
     If an owner or operator who enrolls eligible farm land in a 
     one-year conservation reserve program contract under 
     subsection (b) submits a bid to enroll the same land in the 
     conservation reserve under a long-term conservation reserve 
     program contract that would commence on October 1, 1998, and 
     the Secretary accepts the bid and enters into a long-term 
     conservation reserve program contract with the owner or 
     operator, then the one-year contract shall be considered to 
     be the first year of that long-term conservation reserve 
     program contract.
       (e) Maximum Enrollment.--The maximum number of acres in the 
     conservation reserve during fiscal year 1998, including land 
     enrolled by the Secretary under one-year conservation reserve 
     program contracts under subsection (b), may not exceed 
     30,000,000 acres.
       (f) Application of Conservation Reserve Laws.--Except as 
     specifically provided in this section, the terms and 
     conditions of subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et 
     seq.) shall apply with respect to one-year conservation 
     reserve program contracts authorized by this section.
       (g) Effect of Completion of 15th Enrollment.--If, as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary has already 
     acted on the bids submitted during the enrollment period that 
     ended on March 28, 1997, to enroll land in the conservation 
     reserve, either by accepting or rejection the bids then the 
     authority provided by this section for special one-year 
     conservation reserve program contracts shall not take effect.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL EARLY TERMINATION AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN 
                   CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM CONTRACTS EXPIRING 
                   IN 1997.

       (a) Early Termination Authority.--A farm owner or operator 
     described in subsection (b) who is a party to a conservation 
     reserve program contract expiring during fiscal year 1997 may 
     terminate the contract at any time after June 30, 1997. 
     Notwithstanding section 1235(e) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3835(e)), the termination shall take effect 
     immediately upon submission of notice of the termination to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture and shall not result in a 
     reduction in the amount of the rental payment due under the 
     conservation reserve program contract for fiscal year 1997.
       (B) Eligible Owners and Operators.--A farm owner or 
     operator referred to in subsection (a) is a farm owner or 
     operator with respect to whom one of the following 
     circumstances apply:
       (1) Nether the owner, operator, nor any other eligible 
     person submitted, during the enrollment period that ended on 
     March 28, 1997, an eligible bid to enroll all or part of the 
     land covered by the expiring conservation reserve established 
     under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.).
       (2) An eligible bid was submitted during the enrollment 
     period to enroll all or part of the land covered by the 
     expiring contract in the conservation reserve, but the 
     Secretary of Agriculture rejected the bid and the owner or 
     operator did not notify the Secretary, in the manner provided 
     in section 1(b), that the owner or operator desired a one-
     year contract under section 1.
       (c) Conservation Reserve Program Contract Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``conservation reserve program'' means a 
     contract entered into under subchapter B of Chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) for enrollment of farm acreage in the 
     conservation reserve established under such subchapter.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers H.R. 
1342, a bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture on April 17 by 
voice vote.
  This bill will provide a one-time legislative remedy to a problem 
that many of us have seen coming for many months, and that is a 
specific timing problem for winter crop producers whose current CRP 
contracts will expire this September.
  Members of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia 
Mr. Moran, who introduced the bill in February seeking to solve this 
matter, the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm, and 
many others in a bipartisan effort have been working diligently to find 
the correct fix for this problem. We believe H.R. 1342 is a limited 
remedy to a very real problem that many landowners are now facing.
  As a matter of information, this bill is different from the committee 
bill adopted in that if the Secretary awards CRP contracts prior to 
enactment, this bill is void. If the bill is enacted prior to any 
Secretarial announcement, then eligible landowners will be offered a 1-
year contract.
  Many farmers who needed to know some time ago whether or not they 
were going to get another CRP contract, will not know in time and will 
not be able to plant a winter crop of wheat, barley, or oats. And, by 
the way, through CBO we understand that the loss to farmers is 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 million for a lost crop.
  For those of my colleagues who may not know, producers do not just 
hop on the tractor and put a crop in the ground. Farmers with the major 
part of their operations currently in CRP need significant time for 
securing seed, fertilizer, pesticides and, yes, even a bank loan.
  Those of us from arid areas of the country know that precious soil 
moisture is being consumed now by required CRP cover crop. That cover 
crop should have been removed some time ago in many of the areas of the 
country to save moisture for the coming winter crop planting.
  As Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Rominger pointed out to 
the Committee on Agriculture during hearings last year, the benefits of 
CRP to the U.S. environmental areas are substantial and quantifiable: 
2.4 million acres planted in trees and 8,500 miles of filter strips 
along water bodies, 1.7 million acres of wildlife practices and more 
than 30 million acres of lands devoted to grass cover.
  The Natural Resources Conservation Service estimates CRP contracts 
have saved nearly 700 million tons of soil annually. By any terms, the 
CRP has been a Federal policy success; from an environmental standpoint 
and from any budgetary standpoint. CBO now identifies this bill, if 
passed, to save $75 million.
  Of course, the problem is here. Most of these producers cannot and 
will not gamble on waiting for the USDA to make a decision. Of course, 
should that occur, all the conservation benefits over the past 10 years 
will be lost. The huge blocks of land which conservationists have 
identified as bringing back our native bird populations in the Great 
Plains will be broken up into smaller segments, far less beneficial to 
wildlife. Miles of filter strips buffering water courses will be torn 
up. Millions of acres of grasslands will be returned to annual 
production. I do not believe we should let that happen.
  Again, this bill seeks a technical fix that will allow winter crop 
producers to know if they have a CRP contract for the coming year. If 
they are eligible under the terms of the CRP bid process that concluded 
March 28, they would receive a contract at rental rates offered for 
this new enrollment.
  If the Secretary awards them a contract later, this spring or early 
summer, then they will be provided a new 10-year contract. On the other 
hand, if they are not awarded a contract, the 1-year contract provided 
in this bill will expire next year, giving the landowner plenty of time 
to seed a crop in 1998.

[[Page H1937]]

  This bill does not harm the current CRP program. There are no changes 
made in eligibility criteria or overall standards for entry or early 
exit. We believe landowners who have made a credible bid will be 
considered by the Secretary under the terms of the new rental rates and 
the new environmental benefits index.
  As I said earlier, this bill is a technical remedy to a specific 
problem. Remember, this bill saves $75 million to the taxpayers, if 
enacted. Without it, farmers will lose $600 million. It is farmer 
friendly, it is budget friendly, and it is environmentally friendly. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1342.
  Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent from meeting with farmers and 
discussing the situation with the chairman, that farmers in winter 
wheat States who have expiring Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] 
contracts will probably not have adequate time to react should those 
contracts not be reenrolled in the CRP.
  In other words, these particular producers will not be able to 
prepare the ground and begin to summer fallow their acreage in time to 
ensure adequate moisture for fall planting. I am supporting the 
chairman's efforts to help these producers who were caught in a timing 
crunch through no fault of their own.
  I would have preferred that we would have completed the farm bill in 
a reasonable time so that we wouldn't be in this position today. We 
have a large number of acres expiring in 1 year because a great deal of 
them received a 1-year extension due to the fact that the farm bill was 
not completed in 1995. Now the USDA is under tremendous pressure to 
make quick decisions on how many acres of the nearly 26 million bid 
into the program should be accepted.
  There seems to be some question of fact as to how much time these 
farmers need to prepare their land. In addition, USDA has several 
concerns in regard to how this bill will affect the 15th sign-up. In 
any event, if USDA maintains its schedule to announce the results of 
the 15th sign-up, then this bill will become moot.
  I look forward to working with the Department to ensure the integrity 
of the new CRP remains intact. That is why I am supporting the 
chairman's legislation. This is a small fix for a major problem for a 
specific group of producers.
  We also give some flexibility to producers such as those in Mr. 
Peterson's district who are going to have very limited options should 
there be remaining effects from this spring's flooding or a repeat 
during planting season next year. By allowing landowners who were not 
eligible to rebid existing contracts or whose bids to reenroll were not 
accepted to early out of their contracts, we are giving them maximum 
flexibility to ensure they will be prepared for planting in the spring 
of 1998.
  Again, I rise in support of the chairman's legislation, and urge my 
colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1342.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I rise 
reluctantly because my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith], knows that we are both interested in the same things, but this 
bill would prevent new environmentally sensitive land from being 
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Instead, it would allow 
farmers who have highly productive land currently in the program the 
opportunity to collect a Federal check for not producing for 1 more 
year. Those farmers who have land that they could enroll in the 
program, that would have very positive environmental benefits on the 
nearby communities by being in the program, would be shut out for 
another year.
  I suggest if we want to do right by conservation programs and the 
environment, we should vote ``no'' on this bill. This bill goes 
backward in efforts to protect our environment, not forward. I must, 
with all due respect to my friend from Oregon, oppose the bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, let me reiterate again, as I mentioned in my statement, 
that this bill saves the taxpayers money. This is for farmers in 
America. Without this bill, farmers could lose $600 million in crops. 
This is environmentally friendly, as I have stated.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1342. I do not intend to take a lot of time on this issue. However, I 
would like to share the Nebraska wheat growers support for this bill 
with my colleagues.
  For quite a while, Nebraska's wheat growers have been concerned USDA 
would not decide which bids to accept into CRP until it was too late 
for fall-seeded crops. My wheat growers would have faced the difficult 
decision of planting on land that has the possibility of being enrolled 
in CRP, or waiting for USDA's decision which could be negative.
  The bill will allow winter crop producers to know now that they can 
be enrolled in CRP for the coming crop year. This will solve a minor, 
but very serious timing problem.
  H.R. 1342 makes this situation a little easier for all winter wheat 
growers. I'm pleased to support the 1-year CRP option for fall-seeded 
crops, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1342.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 
1342, a bill to provide technical corrections for the Conservation 
Reserve program. I would like to first thank the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee for bringing this legislation before the House of 
Representatives.
  For those of us with producers caught by the timing of these new CRP 
regulations, this bill offers a sensible method of returning the ground 
to production agriculture and protecting the conservation benefits of 
the program for as long as possible. H.R. 1342 is a narrow solution to 
a real problem.
  At a hearing on February 26, 1997, held by the Subcommittee on 
Forestry, Resource Conservation and Research, I shared my concerns on 
the timing of the new CRP regulations. On February 27, I introduced 
legislation, H.R. 861, that shares much in common with the bill before 
this Chamber. H.R. 1342 allows producers whose land is not accepted to 
extend their contract for up to 1 additional year at the owner's new 
bid. For producers in winter wheat country, this bill allows for a 
reasonable transition of land back into production.
  Under the current CRP enrollment situation established by the USDA, 
producers are faced with the option of losing 11 years of production in 
a 10-year program or being told to tear up the ground prior to being 
notified of a CRP decision and then trying to receive cost-share funds 
to replant the land back into grass if that land was indeed accepted. 
Neither one of these situations made sense to Kansans whose land is in 
the program or to this Member of Congress.
  The Conservation Reserve program is an extremely important, popular, 
and effective program for the people of the first district of Kansas 
and across the country. Nationwide, over 30 million acres of 
environmentally sensitive land have been enrolled in this important 
program. The benefits of this program are readily seen through reduced 
runoff and soil erosion, improved wildlife habitat, and better air 
quality by reducing wind erosion. These benefits are important and I am 
optimistic that through the efforts of this legislation, the 
conservation benefits can be extended and maintained.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1342 and 
take a positive step in supporting one of this Nation's most successful 
conservation programs.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1342, a bill to 
allow farmland in winter wheat and fall-planted crops to remain in a 
conservation program for one more year.
  This temporary measure would provide certainty to Montana farmers and 
ranchers whose Conservation Reserve Program contracts are expiring in 
September.
  Frankly, I am very concerned about the situation Montana farmers 
face. They are caught between the rules of nature and those of the 
Department of Agriculture.
  Nature tells them there is a time for preparing their land and the 
Department tells them to wait.
  In last year's farm bill, we asked producers to manage risk; to 
produce for markets. The Department's delay makes that impossible. 
Clearly, the situation calls for correction.
  The Congressional Budget Office indicates that the bill saves $75 
million next year. Enacting this bill would also prevent the potential 
loss of $600 million in income for farmers nationwide. That's how much 
is at stake if farmers are unable to produce a viable crop while they 
wait for the Department's decision.
  As I said earlier this year, Montana farmers need certainty. They 
need to know; should they prepare land for planting fall crops or for 
establishing a cover suitable for long-term enrollment in the 
Conservation Reserve Program.
  If they aren't accepted in the Conservation Reserve Program, they're 
caught between nature's seasons and the Department's process.

[[Page H1938]]

We can't change nature, but we can change the rules to help not hinder 
our farm families.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends and neighbors look to Congress for help. And, 
that's what this bill would deliver. I agree with Chairman Bob Smith 
and I'm a cosponsor of this important legislation. I urge Members to 
support this legislation. It's good for the environment, good for the 
farmer, and good for the taxpayer.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1342, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________