[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19782-19784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                OPEN SPACE AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION ACT

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 5313) to reserve a small percentage of the amounts made 
available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the farmland protection 
program to fund challenge grants to encourage the purchase of 
conservation easements and other interests in land to be held by a 
State agency, county, or other eligible entity, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5313

       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 ``Open Space and Farmland 
     Preservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION UNDER FARMLAND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Additional Title-Holding Option; Reservation of 
     Funds.--Section 1238I of the Farm Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3838i) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Option for Title to Be Held by Eligible Entity.--
       ``(1) Reservation of funds; purpose.--Of the funds made 
     available under section 1241(a)(4) for a fiscal year to carry 
     out this section, the Secretary shall reserve not less than 
     15 percent to make grants to support cooperative efforts by 
     an eligible State agency, a county, and one or more other 
     eligible entities to purchase conservation easements and 
     other interests in eligible land under subsection (a), the 
     title to which will be held by an eligible entity rather than 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Cost sharing.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the 
     share of the cost of purchasing a conservation easement or 
     other interest in eligible land borne by the United States 
     under this subsection shall not exceed 25 percent. The State 
     agency involved in the purchase shall contribute 25 percent 
     of the purchase price, the county involved in the purchase 
     shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase price, and the 
     other eligible entities involved in the purchase shall 
     contribute 25 percent of the purchase price.
       ``(3) Prohibition on use of grant funds.--Federal funds 
     made available under this subsection may not be used by grant 
     recipients for administrative purposes.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2006.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, urban sprawl continues to threaten the Nation's 
farmland. Social and economic changes over the past three decades have 
influenced the rate at which land is converted to nonagricultural uses. 
Population growth, demographic changes, preferences for larger lots, 
expansion of transportation systems, and economic prosperity have 
contributed to increases in agricultural land conversion rates.
  The amount of farmland lost to development is not the only 
significant concern. Another cause for concern is

[[Page 19783]]

the quality and pattern of farmland being converted. In most States, 
prime farmland is being converted at two to four times the rate of 
other, less-productive agricultural land.
  There continues to be an important national interest in the 
protection of farmland. Land use devoted to agriculture provides an 
important contribution to meeting the Nation's food and fiber needs, 
environmental quality, protection of the Nation's historical and 
archeological resources and scenic beauty.
  The farmland protection program is administered by NRCS and provides 
funds to State, tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental 
organizations to help them purchase conservation easements from willing 
sellers to limit conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.
  The farmland protection program has received funding applications for 
300 percent more dollars than the program was appropriated. The result 
in fiscal year 2005 was $262 million in unfunded projects. There simply 
weren't enough Federal dollars to match the number of applications to 
preserve farmland.
  H.R. 5313, the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Challenge Grant 
Act, was introduced to aid in reducing the number of unfunded projects. 
Currently, the farmland protection program provides up to a 50 percent 
Federal match on these easement projects. By lowering the Federal match 
on a small portion of farmland protection program funding, we believe 
that less Federal funds can be used to protect more land.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 5313, amends the Farm Security Act of 
1985 to set aside 15 percent of farmland protection funds for cost-
share grants, 25 percent maximum Federal share, to support eligible 
State agencies, county, and one or more eligible entities, local 
government or private entities, to purchase conservation easements.
  This bill allows Federal dollars to go further by lowering the 
Federal match fund to a maximum of 25 percent and allowing other 
entities to make up the other 75 percent. States where the State, 
county, and local grassroots effort is strong can make better use of 
increasingly limited dollars. For example, Pennsylvania, which has 
great grassroots efforts to protect farmland, had the most unfunded 
easement applications, 65 for fiscal year 2005, which accounted for 
6,200 acres not being able to be put into this program. By being able 
to use these reserved funds, more acres, with help from more groups, 
can be protected.
  There is no new spending authorized in this bill. It simply creates a 
set-aside out of existing Federal farmland protection dollars. Any 
funds not used will go back into the general disbursement of farmland 
protection funds.
  Madam Speaker, obviously, it is in this country's best interests to 
protect some of its great farmland. This program is immensely popular 
in many States, proven by the numbers of applications for the program 
each year. States like Connecticut, with $14 million in projects that 
could not be funded; Maryland had $17 million; Michigan, $22 million; 
New Hampshire, $15 million; Ohio, $12 million; and Pennsylvania, $20 
million. This bill gives States that have tremendous grassroots 
organizations the ability to protect more farmland with less Federal 
money.
  I would like to thank the ranking member of the committee, 
Congressman Peterson, for working with us on this matter, as well as 
Congressman Gerlach, who introduced the measure, and Congressman Tim 
Holden, a member of the committee, from Pennsylvania, who has 
legislation addressing this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, the farmland protection 
program is an important program that helps farmers preserve their land 
for the future and to combat urban sprawl.
  The program works with State and local groups to purchase 
conservation easements to ensure farmland is kept continually in 
agricultural use for future generations.
  I want to thank the chairman for recognizing the importance of 
preserving open space and hope that we can continue to work together to 
strengthen the Federal program in the next farm bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) 3 minutes.
  Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5313, the Open 
Space and Farmland Preservation Act, a bill I introduced to strengthen 
the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.
  Under the bill, 15 percent of the funds made available for the 
program would be reserved in order to make challenge grants available 
to preserve the most threatened farmland, farmland in States, counties, 
municipalities, or private entities all agree are vital to preserve.
  Simply put, if a State contributes 25 percent, a county contributes 
25 percent, and a municipality or private entity contributes 25 percent 
towards the preservation of eligible farmland, the effort would then be 
eligible for a 25 percent Federal match.
  I know that every, State, county, and municipality's commitment to 
farmland preservation is different, but it is my hope that creating 
this challenge grant will encourage more efforts at these levels of 
government.
  States like Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's counties and 
municipalities have invested heavily in preserving farmland. The 
challenge grant created through H.R. 5313 would only help to encourage 
other States in more local municipalities to follow this example and 
compete for Federal dollars available through the challenge grant.
  I also believe that this challenge grant will steer Federal resources 
towards those projects already getting wide support from counties, 
States, and municipalities, or private organizations. This ensures that 
the increasingly limited Federal resources are being used to preserve 
the most threatened farmland.
  This is an important measure that will help preserve farmland and 
open space in suburban and exurban communities. For residents of these 
areas like my constituents in Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional 
District, preservation of open space and farmland is a quality of life 
issue that can not be overlooked.
  I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for their efforts in 
bringing this bill to the floor today, as well as the efforts of 
Ranking Member Peterson. I would also like to thank my colleague, 
Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois, for his foresight and leadership in 
the creation of the Suburban Agenda Caucus. His efforts and the efforts 
of the leaders of the Caucus have helped shed light on the issues that 
those of us in the suburban communities care deeply about.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5313, the Open 
Space and Farmland Preservation Act.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Jim Gerlach for 
his leadership for the entire Nation in protecting suburban green and 
open space.
  Now, we all support the National Park System, and I believe the next 
President should set a goal of doubling the National Park System. But 
we also need to take action to protect more green and open space near 
home.

                              {time}  1345

  Without this bill, more green and open space would disappear in an 
unending series of strip malls. In my own district, we just set aside 
77 acres of Lake Michigan shoreline as part of a new park to preserve 
habitat for all time. But we need to do more.
  Under Congressman Gerlach's leadership, this bill became part of our 
bipartisan suburban agenda to meet the education, health care, 
conservation and economic needs of suburban families. This bill 
advances those needs by

[[Page 19784]]

making sure that we preserve more green and open space in the suburbs.
  In my own State of Illinois, we are losing over 41,000 acres of 
farmland to development, 71 percent in suburban areas. The rate of 
farmland loss in our State has increased over 130 percent in the 1990s. 
This bill directly meets that need, and I want to thank Chairman 
Goodlatte for moving this legislation that makes sure that suburban 
families have more green and open space near home.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5313.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________