39–006

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–80

ONE-YEAR ENROLLMENT OF CONSERVATION RESERVE

PROGRAM LANDS

APRIL 29, 1997.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SMITH of Oregon, from the Committee on Agriculture,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 1342]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 1342) to provide for a one-year enrollment in the conservation reserve of land covered by expiring conservation reserve program contracts, having considered the same, report favorably

thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as

amended do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof

the following:

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.

(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
2

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 oneyear 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 rejecting 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) Neither 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 program

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.).

(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 contract’’ means a contract entered into under
3

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.

BRIEF EXPLANATION

H.R. 1342, as amended, allows farmers who plant fall-seeded

crops and have Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts expiring in 1997 to enroll the land subject to the expiring contract in

a one-year CRP contract, and allows farmers with expiring contracts, who will not be entering into new CRP contracts, to begin

cultivating the acreage in preparation for all-seeding that is subject

to the expiring CRP contract after June 30, 1997, without penalty.

To be eligible for this one-year CRP contract, the farm on which

the CRP acreage is located must have had wheat, oats, or barley

crop acreage base attributed to it when it was enrolled in the longterm CRP contract and be located in an area that regularly grows

fall-seeded crops, and the owner or operator must have submitted

a bid to enroll the acres in the expiring long-term CRP contract

into a new long-term CRP contract. Additionally, farmers who are

awarded a new long-term CRP contract before the one-year CRP

contract becomes effective are not eligible for a one-year contract,

and the one-year contract will not extend the duration of any such

long-term CRP contract entered into by a farmer in subsequent

CRP signups or enrollments. Also, if the Secretary completes enrollment for the bids submitted during the enrollment period that

ended March 28, 1997 (the 15th signup), before this bill is enacted,

then the one-year contract authority is ineffective.

The rental rate for the one-year contract will be the rate bid by

the farmer in USDA’s 15th CRP enrollment period, which cannot

be higher than the maximum county rental rate established by the

Secretary of Agriculture.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The CRP was reauthorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (‘‘FAIR’’) Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–127), which was

enacted April 4, 1996. Because the signup for USDA’s 15th CRP

enrollment period did not end until March 28, 1997, there is a potential for thousands of landowners and farm operators who normally seed fall crops—winter wheat, oats and barley—and who

have submitted a bid for a new long-term CRP contract will not

know whether they have a contract until after the time when they

need to make planting decisions and begin preparing fields to plant

a 1997 fall-seeded crop. H.R. 1342 was introduced to provide a onetime, legislative remedy for this problem which, left uncorrected,

could effectively deprive farmers of income from such acreage for

one year.–

Farmers with a major part of their operations currently in CRP

need significant time for securing seed, fertilizer, and pesticides to

plant crops on this land formerly devoted to the CRP contract use,

and farmers also need to talk with their lenders to ensure credit

will be available to obtain those crop inputs for land formerly devoted to a CRP cover crop. Additionally, in arid areas of the country, soil moisture is being consumed by the required CRP cover

crop. The required CRP cover crop should probably have been de-
4

stroyed some time ago in several of these areas to save moisture

for a fall-seeded crop planting.–

A technical correction is necessary to deal with the timing of

USDA’s 15th CRP enrollment to allow winter crop producers to

know now if they have a CRP contract. If the Secretary awards

producers a new, long-term contract, the one-year contract this legislation provides will expire. Should the landowner not receive a

new long-term contract, then the one-year contract will expire on

September 30, 1998, and the landowner will be able to rebid such

acres in subsequent long-term CRP enrollments.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. One-year enrollment of land covered by expiring conservation reserve program contracts

Subsection (a) describes land eligible for a one-year contract: the

land must be on a farm that is either partially or fully enrolled in

a CRP contract that expires at the end of fiscal year 1997; the farm

must have had a crop acreage base for wheat, oats, or barley on

it when it was originally enrolled in the long-term CRP; the farm

must be located in an area in which the Secretary determines fallseeded crops are regularly planted; the owner or operator of the

land must have submitted a bid to enroll all or part of the land

subject to the expiring contract in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) 15th CRP signup

(which ended March 28, 1997); and the land subject to the bid must

meet the eligibility criteria for the 15th CRP signup.–

Subsection (b) authorizes, except as provided in subsection (g),

the owner (or operator, with the owner’s permission) to enroll the

land subject to the bid in CRP for one year, by notifying the Secretary of the owner or operator’s intent to do so during a notification period established by the Secretary promptly after the date of

enactment. If the Secretary has already accepted an owner or operator’s bid to enroll in a 15th CRP long-term contract, then the

owner or operator will not be eligible for a one-year contract.

Subsection (c) establishes the rental rate for the one-year contract to be the rate which the owner or operator bid for enrollment

in the 15th signup. In order to be an eligible bid, the rental rate

cannot be higher than the maximum county rental rate established

by the Secretary.

Subsection (d) provides that a one-year contract entered into

under this section will become the first year of any long-term CRP

contract entered into by an owner or operator in a subsequent

signup. This will ensure that a one-year contract will not allow

anyone to have an additional year under a long-term contract.

Subsection (e) limits total enrollments in fiscal year 1998, including acreage enrolled in one-year contracts, to no more than

30,000,000 acres. This provision ensures that expenditures during

fiscal year 1998 will not exceed the spending baseline estimate of

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (f) provides that, except for the length of the contract,

the CRP provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended,

are applicable to the one-year contracts under this section.
5

Subsection (g) provides that, as of the date of enactment, if the

Secretary has already accepted or rejected the bids submitted during the enrollment period that ended March 28, 1997, then section

1 shall not take effect.

Section 2. Special early termination authority for certain Conservation Reserve Program contracts expiring in 1997

Subsection (a) provides that an owner or operator (as described

in subsection (b)) may terminate a CRP contract that expires during fiscal year 1997 anytime after June 30, 1997, without any reduction in the rental payment for fiscal year 1997.

Subsection (b) limits this early termination authority to owners

and operators who: (1) did not submit a bid during USDA’s 15th

signup; or (2) submitted a bid during the 15th signup that was not

accepted by the Secretary and did not notify the Secretary under

section 1(b) that such owner or operator desired a one-year CRP

contract. This limits the early termination authority to owners or

operators who will not be entering into either a one-year or longterm CRP contract.

Subsection (c) specifies that ‘‘conservation reserve program contract’’ 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.).

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. General consideration

The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice on April

17, 1997 with a quorum present, to consider H.R. 1342.

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order and gave a brief

statement regarding the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

to H.R. 1342. Chairman Smith recognized Mr. Stenholm, Ranking

Minority Member and other Members for opening remarks.

Thereafter, Chairman Smith offered the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1342 and without objection the substitute amendment was laid before the Committee and considered

as original text for purposes of amendment and the reading of such

amendment was waived without objection. Counsel then explained

the substitute amendment.

Mr. Dooley was recognized and expressed concern about language in the Substitute Amendment that he believed would make

farmland, other than conservation reserve program (CRP) acreage

enrolled in prior CRP signups, eligible for enrollment in a one-year

contract. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed to change the

language to fit the intent of the legislation, which was to limit

farmland eligible for a one-year contract to no more than that land

on the farm enrolled in a prior long-term CRP contract.

Mr. Minge was then recognized to offer and explain an amendment that would make land enrolled in a land conservation program of the State of Minnesota known as ‘‘Reinvest in Minnesota’’

eligible for enrollment in the conservation reserve upon the expiration of the Reinvest in Minnesota contract. Discussion occurred,

and without objection, Mr. Minge withdrew his amendment after

agreeing to report language regarding the eligibility of former Rein-
6

vest in Minnesota Lands in the conservation reserve (See part B,

the ‘‘Additional Consideration’’ portion of this report for such report

language).

Mr. Peterson was recognized to offer and explain an amendment

which would offer a one-year extension of Conservation Reserve

Program contracts. Discussion occurred, and without objection Mr.

Peterson withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Peterson was further recognized to offer and explain another

amendment regarding special early termination authority for Conservation Reserve Program contracts expiring in 1997. Discussion

occurred, and by a voice vote the amendment was adopted (See the

section-by-section analysis of section 2 for an explanation of such

amendment).

Mr. Bishop was recognized to offer and explain an amendment

in conjunction with report language concerning the repeal of existing statutory language which designates the Conservation Reserve

Program as a supply management tool. Discussion occurred, and

without objection, Mr. Bishop withdrew his amendment after

agreeing to his report language being included (See part B, the

‘‘Additional Consideration’’ portion of this report for a discussion of

such report language).

Mr. Combest was then recognized to offer and explain report language regarding a position of the Committee urging the initiation

of a second long-term Conservation Reserve Program sign-up by

USDA (the first being the 15th CRP signup) before the end of calendar year 1997. Discussion occurred and by unanimous consent

the report language was adopted (See part B, of the ‘‘Additional

Consideration’’ portion of this report for a discussion of such report

language).

Chairman Smith offered the technical amendment regarding

land covered by expiring contracts as a result of earlier discussion

by Mr. Dooley noted herein above (See paragraph four of this part

A portion of the report). The amendment, which was adopted by a

voice vote, clarified the Committee’s intent relating to this language.

Chairman Smith, without objection, called for a vote on the adoption of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1342.

By a voice vote the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to

H.R. 1342, as amended, was adopted.

Mr. Combest then moved that the bill, H.R. 1342, as amended,

be reported favorably to the House, By a voice vote, H.R. 1342, as

amended, was ordered favorably to the House.

Mr. Combest also moved that the Committee authorize the

Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 1342 or similar Senate

bills. By a voice vote the motion was agreed to.

Without objection, staff was given permission make such technical, clarifying, or conforming changes as are appropriate without

changing the substance of the legislation.

The Chairman then thanked the Members and adjourned the

meeting subject to the call of the chair.
7

B. Additional consideration

The Committee is concerned that, if not properly implemented,

this legislation could create an inequitable situation between two

groups of contract holders. One group of contract holders will receive one year contracts under the terms of this legislation. The

second group could consist of owners and operators who do not receive this one year contract or did not have their bids accepted in

the 15th signup.

The Committee expects that USDA will conduct another CRP enrollment before the end of calendar year 1997. Conducting this second long-term CRP enrollment would provide an opportunity for

the second group of contract holders to rebid their land for the CRP

while it is still planted in grass (or appropriate cover) and before

owners and operators must begin preparing the ground for Spring

planting.

With respect to USDA’s final regulations implementing the 1996

FAIR Act changes to CRP, the Committee has several concerns.

First, there is an expectation that the number of acres of filter

strips, riparian buffers, field windbreaks and grass waterways enrolled in CRP will increase under the new criteria and emphasis

put forward by USDA. The Committee is concerned that despite

the emphasis on enrolling acreage in these environmentally sensitive areas, USDA has not yet provided its field personnel with

adequate guidance to be conveyed to owners or operators as to

what conditions or limitations may be imposed on tillage or other

farming practices applicable to farmland adjacent to or bordered by

these types of enrollments.

Specifically, it will be important for landowners who have an interest in enrolling these types of acres to have assurances that they

will be able to continue to normally farm any cropland adjacent to

or bordered by the CRP acreage. In addition, it is important for

landowners to be able to carry out spot control of noxious weeds

through mowing and spraying in order to comply with applicable

state laws and federal regulations. If USDA or other federal agencies decide to deny or limit access to farmland adjacent to or bordered by this acreage, the Committee expects to see a decrease in

participation by landowners. Therefore, in the interest of ensuring

the success of the CRP, it is expected that USDA will shortly issue

common-sense guidance to reassure landowners who have already

submitted bids or may be contemplating future participation in the

CRP as to guidelines applicable to owners and operators with respect to their land adjacent to CRP acreage, especially those devoted to filter strips, riparian buffers, grass waterways, etc.

Second, the Committee is concerned about the impact of USDA’s

final CRP regulations with respect to the eligibility of acreage enrolled in the old Water Bank Program and lands enrolled in the

State of Minnesota’s ‘‘Reinvest in Minnesota’’ (RIM) program. With

respect to acreage in the old Water Bank Program, the Committee

is concerned about the existing regulations limiting the eligibility

of expired Water Bank Program acres to be enrolled in the CRP

and expects the Secretary to revisit the issue with owners and operators offering bids prior to the announcement of successful bids

for the 15th signup.
8

With respect to RIM lands, the Committee notes that this State

program parallels, on a state level, many of the environmental

goals of the CRP. The Committee expects the Secretary, in developing eligibility criteria for the CRP, to ensure that state programs

such as RIM, are fully coordinated with the federal CRP administered by the Secretary in order for the land enrolled in state programs to receive appropriate consideration for enrollment in the

CRP. The Committee expects the Secretary to take whatever steps

are necessary to ensure that these lands are not disadvantaged by

their participation in such state programs, and that they be eligible

for enrollment in the CRP in future signup periods or during the

continuous signup period if applicable to the land in question.

The Committee recognizes the ambiguous nature of section 1236

of the Food Security Act of 1985 as a result of the amendments

made by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996. The Committee expects USDA, should they choose to implement this ambiguous provision, to do so in such a manner as to

minimize any unintended consequences. Among the unintended

consequences that concern the Committee is specifically any disincentive for certain farmers to participate in the CRP especially

those whose participation will result in high environmental benefits. In addition, USDA should use the least intrusive means in implementing section 1236, such as farm reconstitutions or other less

intrusive procedures.

REPORTING THE BILL—ROLLCALL VOTES

In compliance with clause 2(l)(2) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1342 was reported by voice vote with a majority

quorum present. There was no request for a recorded vote.

BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE (SECTIONS 308, 403, AND 424)

The provisions of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new budget authority,

new spending authority, new credit authority, or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to be prepared by the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under clause 2(l)(3)(C)

of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections

403 and 424 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 submitted to

the Committee prior to the filing of this report are as follows:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 29, 1997.

Hon. ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for an amended

version of H.R. 1342, a bill to provide for a one-year enrollment in

the conservation reserve of land covered by expiring conservation

reserve program contracts.
9

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dave Hull.

Sincerely,

JUNE E. O’NEILL, Director.

Enclosure.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 1342—A bill to provide for a one-year enrollment in the conservation reserve of land covered by expiring conservation reserve program contracts

Summary: H.R. 1342 would allow most land owners who (1) currently participate in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and

(2) have submitted bids to continue in the program, to extend for

one-year their CRP contacts that expire during fiscal year 1997. To

keep the size of the CRP from exceeding expected levels, the bill

would limit the program to no more than 30 million acres in 1998.

This version of the bill includes a new subsection (g) to section 1

that would preclude the one-year extension if the Secretary of Agriculture has completed enrollment action on submitted bids prior to

enactment of the bill.

The budgetary impact of H.R. 1342 depends on how soon the bill

is enacted. CBO estimates that if the bill is enacted by about May

30, 1997, the enrollment cap would likely be effective, and as a result, the bill would reduce spending in fiscal year 1998 but would

have no net impact over the 1998–2002 period. On the other hand,

if the bill is enacted later, the ongoing enrollment for the program

would likely be completed, resulting in no impact on direct spending in any fiscal year.

Because H.R. 1342 could affect direct spending in 1998, pay-asyou-go procedures would apply. H.R. 1342 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) and would not impose costs

on state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The CRP is a longterm land retirement program intended to provide environmental

benefits through idling highly erodible or environmentally fragile

land. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pays landowners

an annual rent plus part of the costs of establishing beneficial

cover crops (referred to as cost-share assistance) in return for

planting such crops and retiring the land from farming. In the first

major sign-up since the CRP was reauthorized in the 1996 farm bill

(the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996,

Public Law 104–127), USDA recently invited landowners to submit

bids for contracts to enter their erodible or environmentally fragile

land into the CRP starting in fiscal year 1998. About 18 million

acres of land with expiring contracts from the existing CRP and

about 8 million acres of land not previously covered by contracts

have been offered in this sign-up.

USDA is currently reviewing the bids and ranking them according to an environmental benefit index developed for this purpose.

The Secretary of Agriculture has state his intention to notify landowners by late May of 1997 of the department’s decision to accept
10

or reject their bids. Both USDA and CBO expect that the accepted

bids will put the size of the CRP at about 30 million acres in 1998.

CBO expects that enacting H.R. 1342 before USDA notifies producers of its acceptance of their bids would lead the department to

accept less acreage not formerly covered by CRP contracts, and to

replace that land with acreage under expiring contracts. On the

other hand, enacting this bill after USDA notifies producers of its

acceptance of their bids would make the special one-year CRP authority ineffective.

For the purposes of this estimate, we assume the Secretary

would take action on bids he is currently reviewing on or about

May 30, 1997. The budgetary effects of H.R. 1342, which depend

on whether the bill is enacted by that date, are discussed below.

Assuming enactment by May 30, 1997

CBO estimates that enacting this legislation before completion of

the current enrollment (that is, before USDA notifies applicants of

accepted bids) would decrease outlays from direct spending in fiscal

year 1998 by about $75 million. Prompt enactment of H.R. 1342

would result in up-front savings because replacing potential new

sign-ups with extensions of current contracts would eliminate the

need for the USDA to make cost-share payments on 4 million acres

that would otherwise be newly enrolled in the program. However,

CBO estimates that the USDA, after postponing the enrollment of

new acres, would likely include them in the program the following

year. That action would increase direct spending for the cost-share

payments in subsequent years, resulting in no net impact over five

years.

Assuming enactment after May 30, 1997

The new subsection 1(g) included in this amended version of H.R.

1342 makes it clear that, if the Secretary of Agriculture has completed enrollment action on bids submitted during the enrollment

period that ended March 28, 1997, then the special one-year CRP

authority in section 1 will not take effect. In that case, CBO estimates that enactment of the bill would have no budgetary impact

in any fiscal year.

The following table summarizes the estimated budgetary impact

of H.R. 1342 under the two alternative assumptions about the bill’s

enactment date.

By fiscal years, in millions of dollars—

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Assuming Enactment by May 30, 1997:

Estimated budget authority .............................................................. 0 ¥75 33 27 15 0

Estimated outlays ............................................................................. 0 ¥75 33 27 15 0

Assuming Enactment after May 30, 1997:

Estimated budget authority .............................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated outlays ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go

procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts

through 1998. Enacting H.R. 1342 could affect direct spending be-
11

cause of the possible impact on cost-share payments for establishing acceptable cover crops on newly enrolled CRP acreage. CBO estimates that direct spending in fiscal year 1998 would be $75 million lower than under current law if the bill is enacted by May 30,

1997. (Those savings, however, would be offset in subsequent years,

for no net impact over the 1998–2002 period.) If the bill is enacted

later, CBO estimates that direct spending would not be affected in

fiscal year 1998, or any other year.

Estimated intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R.

1342 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as

defined in UMRA, and would impose no costs on state, local or private governments.

Previous CBO estimate: On April 25, 1997, CBO completed an

estimate of the impact of H.R. 1342, as ordered reported by the

House Committee on Agriculture on April 17, 1997. In that estimate, we determined that, if the legislation were to be enacted

after the current CRP enrollment process is completed, the acreage

cap for 1998 would be ineffective, and direct spending for 1999

would increase by about $200 million. The current (amended) version of H.R. 1342 would render the authority for the special oneyear CRP extension ineffective if the bill is enacted after USDA

acts on bids from the current enrollment. This change would remove the possibility that direct costs would increase.

Estimate prepared by: Dave Hull.

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the Committee finds the Constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I, clause 8, section 18, that grants

Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers vested by Congress in the Government of the

United States or in any department or officer thereof.

OVERSIGHT STATEMENT

No summary of oversight findings and recommendations made by

the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, as provided

for in clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI and clause 4(c)(2) of rule X of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, was available to the Committee with reference to the subject matter specifically addressed

by H.R. 1342.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI, and clause 2(b)(1) of rule

X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on

Agriculture’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected

in the body of this report.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the cost estimate and estimated intergovernmental and private sector impact of
12

H.R. 1342, as amended, prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office April 29, 1997 pursuant to sections 403 and

424 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This new estimate

from the Congressional Budget Office is based on a Committee

technical amendment to section 1 adding a new subsection (g), that

corrects a potential increase in direct spending for fiscal year 1999

identified in the Congressional Budget Office’s original estimate.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this legislation.

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).

Æ