[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.
____________________