[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 74 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2359-S2360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Casey, Mr. Rounds, 
        and Ms. Smith):
  S. 1458. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to encourage 
the planting of cover crops following prevented planting, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1458

       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 ``Cover Crop Flexibility Act 
     of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. COVER CROPS PLANTED DUE TO PREVENTED PLANTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 508A of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1508a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)--
       (i) by striking ``collect an indemnity'' and inserting the 
     following: ``collect--

       ``(I) an indemnity'';

       (ii) in subclause (I) (as so designated), by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(II) an indemnity payment that is equal to the prevented 
     planting guarantee for the acreage for the first crop, if the 
     second crop--

       ``(aa) is an approved cover crop that--
       ``(AA) will be planted for use as animal feed or bedding 
     that is hayed, grazed (rotationally, adaptively, or at equal 
     to or less than the carrying capacity), or chopped outside of 
     the primary nesting season; or
       ``(BB) will not be harvested, such as a crop with an 
     intended use of being left standing or cover; and
       ``(bb) cannot be harvested for grain or other uses 
     unrelated to livestock forage or conservation, as determined 
     by the Corporation.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``a second crop described in item (aa) or 
     (bb) of paragraph (1)(B)(ii)(II), or'' before ``double 
     cropping''; and
       (ii) by striking ``make an election under paragraph 
     (1)(B)'' and inserting ``makes an election under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii)(I)''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(f) Prevented Planting Coverage Factors.--For producers 
     that plant cover crops following prevented planting, the 
     Corporation may provide separate prevented planting coverage 
     factors that include preplanting costs and the cost of cover 
     crop seed.''.
       (b) Research and Development.--Section 522(c) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Cover crops.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall carry out research 
     and development, or offer to enter into 1 or more contracts 
     with 1 or more qualified persons to carry out research and 
     development, regarding a policy to insure crops on fields 
     that regularly utilize cover crops.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Research and development under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       ``(i) a review of prevented planting coverage factors 
     described in section 508A(f) and an evaluation of whether to 
     include cover crop seed costs and costs related to grazing in 
     the calculation of a factor;
       ``(ii) the extent to which cover crops reduce the risk of 
     subsequent prevented planting;
       ``(iii) the extent to which cover crops make crops more 
     resilient to or otherwise reduce the risk of loss resulting 
     from natural disasters such as drought;
       ``(iv) the extent to which increased regularity of using 
     cover crops or interactions with other practices such as 
     tillage or rotation affects risk reduction;
       ``(v) whether rotational, adaptive, or other prescribed 
     grazing of cover crops can maintain or improve risk 
     reduction; and
       ``(vi) how best to account for any reduced risk and provide 
     a benefit to producers using

[[Page S2360]]

     cover crops through a separate plan or policy of insurance.
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall make 
     available on the website of the Corporation, and submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate, a report that--
       ``(i) describes the results of the research and development 
     carried out under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) includes any recommendations with respect to those 
     results.''.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, along with my livestock producer protection 
bill, I am also introducing legislation today to eliminate the November 
1 haying and grazing date for cover crops.
  Cover crops provide a lot of environmental benefits. They improve 
soil health, reduce erosion and nutrient runoff, improve water quality, 
and sequester carbon. They also benefit farmers, since their animals 
can graze these crops, or the cover crops can be harvested to provide 
forage for livestock. Currently, the haying and grazing date--the date 
on which farmers can start harvesting or grazing cover groups on 
prevent plant acres--is set for November 1, which is too late in the 
year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. Early 
winter weather in these States can cause cover crops to freeze before 
they can be used for hay and grazing.
  The legislation I am introducing today with my colleague Senator 
Stabenow would fix this problem by letting farmers harvest and graze 
cover crops outside of the primary nesting season, which ends August 1 
in South Dakota, allowing for both farmers and our environment to 
benefit from these crops.
  Protecting our planet is imperative, and government certainly has a 
role to play in promoting clean energy and sound environmental policy, 
but putting the government in charge of our economy--in fact, putting 
the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life, 
as the Green New Deal would do--is not the answer. Innovation, not 
government, is the key to addressing environmental challenges.
  Unfortunately, President Biden is embracing a whole host of Green New 
Deal-like policies. Take his so-called 30-by-30 directive directing the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Agencies to provide 
recommendations to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 
2030.
  I have already heard from ranchers and landowners in South Dakota who 
are concerned about the measures the administration could pursue to 
meet this goal, including Federal land acquisitions and burdensome 
regulations on private landowners, many of whom are already doing 
everything they can to promote the health of their land.
  There is also serious reason to doubt the government's ability to 
manage a vast new amount of land. The Federal Government already 
frequently fails to properly manage the land it already has. Yet some 
believe that we can give the Federal Government huge new swaths of 
land, and somehow the government will manage it properly.
  Yet that is the problem with a lot of these socialist fantasies. They 
assume that the government will achieve levels of efficiency and 
productiveness that the government has simply never demonstrated. It is 
the triumph of fantasy over experience. Surely, the people espousing 
socialist fantasies have sat in long lines at the DMV or remember how 
the Obama administration had more than 3 years to prepare for the 
opening of the ObamaCare exchange yet couldn't even come up with a 
working website in that time period. Yet the Green New Deal's 
proponents are advocating that we put the government in charge of 
pretty much every aspect of American life.
  Socialists and the Democrats parroting their ideology don't want to 
believe it, but the truth is that private individuals are often a lot 
more efficient, effective, and innovative than government, and we 
should be focusing our energies on supporting that efficiency and 
effectiveness and innovation instead of attempting to solve our 
environmental problems by giving the government more than it can 
handle.
  I will continue working here in Congress to advance policies that 
promote clean energy and improve our environment without placing heavy 
burdens on American workers or American families. I will continue to 
advocate for policies that encourage and harness the ingenuity of the 
American people in facing our environmental challenges, and I will 
continue to oppose legislation that prioritizes supposed environmental 
gains over the well-being of the American people
                                 ______