[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S1145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 333. A bill to amend the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 to improve the farmland protection program; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


       federal agriculture improvement and reform act amendments

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have Senators Torricelli, 
DeWine, Jeffords, Kennedy, Harkin, Mikulski, Levin, Kerry, Murray and 
Boxer join me today to reauthorize a program that has helped hundreds 
of farmers across the country save their farms and stay in the business 
of farming. Today, we are introducing a bill to reauthorize the 
Farmland Protection Program at a funding level of $55 million a year. 
This new authorization supports the efforts of President Clinton to 
restart the program with $50 million in Fiscal Year 2000.
  Since its creation in the 1996 Farm Bill, the Farmland Protection 
Program has been instrumental in curbing the loss of some of our 
nation's most productive farmland to urban sprawl. The Farmland 
Protection Program help shield farmers from development pressures by 
providing federal matching grants to state and local conservation 
organizations to purchase easements on farms.
  We have all seen the impact of urban sprawl in our home states, 
whether it be large, multi-tract housing or mega-malls that bring 
national superstores and nation-sized parking lots. We are losing 
farmland across the country at an alarming rate. This bill will step up 
our efforts to halt this disturbing trend before too many of America's 
farms are permanently transformed into asphalt jungles.
  In Vermont, we are also seeing the impact of development on our 
farmland. Increasing land prices and development pressure have forced 
too many Vermont farmers to sell to developers instead of passing on 
their farms to the next generation. With the former Farms for the 
Future program and the Farmland Protection Program, farmers now have a 
fighting chance against development. Since its inception in Vermont, 
these programs have helped conserve 78,000 acres of land on more than 
220 Vermont farms.
  The success of the program should not just be measured in acres 
though. The program also has helped farmers expand and re-invest in 
farm facilities and equipment. Some of the farm projects have also led 
to construction of affordable housing and preservation of wildlife 
habitat. There are now success stories all over Vermont. One is the 
story of Paul and Marian Connor of Bridport, Vermont. Working with the 
Vermont Land Trust they were able to conserve their 221-acre farm while 
continuing their dairy operation, raising seven children and retire 
their mortgage.
  Although Vermont is making great progress, across the nation we 
continue to lose as much as one million acres of prime farmland 
annually. This land is critically important to agriculture. For 
example, nearly three-quarters of America's dairy products, fruits and 
vegetables are grown in counties affected by urban growth.
  For American farmers and ranchers, farmland protection is an issue of 
the survival of both family farms and agricultural regions. When urban 
pressure pushes up the value of agricultural land above its 
agricultural value, it threatens the end of family farms because the 
next generation simply cannot afford to farm land valued at development 
prices. As some farmers sell their land for development, it places 
increasing pressure on their neighbors to sell as well.
  The 1996 Farm Bill recognized this problem by directly providing $35 
million for farmland protection matching funds that have leveraged 
million more from local and private programs. The Farmland Protection 
Program is a model of what new federal conservation programs ought to 
be, enjoying the unanimous support of the National Governors 
Association. It preserves the private property rights of farmers.
  It offers the Congress a way to demonstrate a realistic and 
meaningful commitment to the conservation of America's natural heritage 
without expanding the role of the federal government, and it encourages 
local communities and states to contribute their own efforts. The 
program's overwhelming success though has led to increased demand for 
the program--applicants requested a federal match of more than $130 
million.
  Our bill will help address some of this demand and encourage more 
state governments, local communities and private groups to start new 
matching programs. This modest federal investment will maintain our 
commitment to the protection of our rural heritage and working 
landscape.
                                 ______