Date: 1984-05-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. it gives me great pleasure to join in support of H.R. 3457. the Soil Conservation Act of 1984. H.R. 3457 contains several interrelated provisions that make an important contribution toward soil conservation on our more highly erodible land. The first portion of the bill. commonly known as sodbuster legislation. would provide incentives to keep highly erodible land not now in production from being used to cultivate crops. The other major portion of the bill. the conservation reserve program. would provide authority for assistance to be made available to farmers and ranchers who convert erosionprone lap . which currently is in production. to less intensive uses that conserve and improve soil and water resources. H.R. 3457 was introduced by Mr. ED JONES of Tennessee chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation. Credit. and Rural Development. and jointly sponsored by Mr. COLEMAN Of Missouri. ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. JEFFORDs. and many other Members of the House. In all. it is sponsored by 35 Members. It enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle and was reported by the committee by a recorded vote of 38 ayes to 1 nay. Before I proceed further. I wish to pay tribute to ED JONEs. The bill is before the House in large part because of his dedication and tireless efforts. Mr. JONEs has been in the forefront of the conservation movement and has largely been responsible for much of the conservation legislation enacted into law since he became chairman of the subcommittee in 1977. In addition. through the oversight activities of his subcommittee. he has done much to focus national attention on the need for improved methods of soil conservation and to prod the administration to take seriously its obligations to this end. At this time I would like to describe In detail the provisions of H.R. 3457. Title II. the sodbuster provisions. would deny benefits on agricultural programs to persons who. after the date of enactment of the bill. bring highly erodible land into cultivation on a field in which the predominant class of land is highly erodible. as defined in this act. Each such person would be ineligible. as to any agricultural commodity he produces during that crop year. for any type of Federal price support. any type of Federal income assistance or production adJustment payment. any farm storage facility loan. any Federal crop insurance. any disaster paymentis. or any new loan from the Farmers Home Administration if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the loan will contribute to excessive erosion on highly erodible land. - The bill provides several exemptions from these requirements. There is an exemption for those producers whose commodities produced on highly erodible land were produced under an approved conservation system. This exemption is in recognition of the fact that these landowners will not be contributing to excessive erosion on fragIle lands. The bill provides additional exemptions to avoid imposing any retroactive restrictions on agricultural producers wllo made farming decisions prior to the implementation of this new program. Thus. the bill makes it clear that the provisions would not apply to a producer if all the crops he produced on highly erodible land were produced during the 1973 through 1984 crop years. or were planted II13424 before enactment of the bill or during a crop year beginning before the date of enactment. Finally. the committee bill also would not apply to any agricultural loan made before enactment of the bill. I want to make clear to the Members that nothing in this bill imposes demands on any farmer or rancher concerning what may or may not be done with his or her land. What the bill does do is simply state that the Federal Government will no longer subsidize producers who choose to cultivate highly erodible land using farming practices that are not in conformity with an approved conservation system. The committee believes that efforts. such as those contained in title II. to prevent excessive amounts of additional soil erosion make sense in terms of the national economy and the environment. Soil erosion is a serious national problen which has resulted in the loss of valuable topsoil in many agricultural areas. The most reliable estimates of soil erosion in the United States obtained in 1977. the latest date for which such data are available from the Department of Agriculture. showed that 38 million acres of cropland11 percent of the total cropland in the United Stateswas eroding in excess of 15 tons per acre annually. In any key wheatproducing areas the soil loss averages about 30 tons per acre. reaching as much as 100 tons per acre in some areas under extreme conditions. In 1982 the acres of highly erodible land already under cultivation amounted to about 45 million acres. There is the potential of another 247 million acres of highly erodible land not now in cultivation that could be brought into production unless checked. When fragile lands are converted into cropland without the installation of a conservation system. the Nation pays the costs of this conversion in several ways. First. the Government often subsidizes the production from these erodible lands through various farm support programs and subsidized irrigation water. In addition. many individuals. farms. Industries. and fish and wildlife resources located downstream of the converted land end up paying the most significant costs. For instance. the sediment resulting from erosion is costing the Nation hundreds of millions of dollars a year as it fills up valuable reserviors. increases the frequency and seriousness of floods. clogs navigation facilities and canals. interferes with industrial hydraulic equipment. increases the cost of treating drinking water supplies. destroys valuable aquatic wildlife. and substantially diminishes the recreational potential of downstream waters. The nutrients. pesticides. and other contaminants carried into waterways with the eroded soil exacrebate all of these problems and create still others. Title II of H.R. 3457 will not stop erosion. and in fact it will not correct the problems which already exist. However. this initiative is clearly a reasonable and much needed step in the direction of slowing down the rate at which future conversions of fragile lands add to these problems. H.R. 3457 requires the Secretary to establish. by regulation. an appeal procedure under which a person who is adversely affected by any determination made under the bill may seek review of the determination. This provision was included to protect producers against arbitrary decisions made by the Department. It would assure that producers are provided an opportunity to obtain review of determinations of land classification that trigger the application of the program ineligibility provisions as well as a review of determinations as to specific denials of program benefits. The committee recognizes that legitimate differences of opinion may occur on these issues. It should be noted that H.R. 3457 does not make determinations of the Secretary final. and thus any person that is aggrieved by administrative determinations. after conclusion of the appeal process may seek judicial review in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Title III of the bill would require the Secretary before February 16. 1985. to submit to the congressional agricultural committees a report on various voluntary setaside programs. It is primarily addressed to an issue which many persons claim results in unfairly penalizing farmers who divert land to conservation uses under those programs. To assist in handling this issue in future farm legislation. the report is required to include an analysis of a program under which persons who set aside cropland to perennial grasses or legumes as part of a crop rotation pattern may qualify under future commodity programs to have the lands designated: First. as cropland in rotation for the purpose of establishing a normal acreage base for the farm. or second. as setaside or conservinguse acreage under those programs. For several years conservationists have contended that Federal Government farm price support and production control programs unfairly reward farmers who have overutilized their marginal lands through row crop production. while penalizing farmers who have kept marginal lands in conserving uses or practiced a conservationoriented crop rotation program. The committee hopes that the study and recommendations resulting from title III will suggest solutions to this problem that could be included in the 1985 farm bill if legislation is needed. - Title IV of H.R. 3457. as reported by the committee. establishes a program under which farmers would agree to carry out conservation measures on erosionprone lands under contracts with the Department of Agriculture for periods of 7 to 15 years. In the Conservation Reserve contract with USDA. the farmer would agree to take specified erosionprone land out of annual row crop production and put it in a more conserving but productive pursuit such as pasture. hay. or timber. The farmer would be paid an annual rental to compensate him for the transition to a less profitable but more soilconserving use. Farmers could also be assisted with cost sharing for installing conservation practices. establishing grasses. or planting trees. At present the annual production adjustment programs have some serious shortcomings with respect to achieving conservation. First. the programs operate on a yeartoyear basis. making it virtually impossible for farmers to incorporate a longterm conservation system into shortterm program requirements. Also. no attempt is now made to selectively enroll erosionprone cropland into the current setaside programs. The program would allow farmers to reap commercial benefits from land entered in the conservation reserve. Some commercial uses which would be considered include grazing or the use of the land for hay. seed. or timber production. The rental rate paid to the farmer for entering the program is based on bids offered by the farmers. The committee is of the view that coupling a commercial use with the bid procedure will result in the lowest cost to the Government and smooth a permanent transition to conservation uses. Under the bill. payments to producers would not exceed $50.000.000 for contracts entered into during fiscal year 1985. $75.000.000 for contracts entered into during fiscal year 1986. and $100.000.000 for contracts entered into during the fiscal year 1987. The committee .recognizes that this level of funding is insufficient to meet the overall national need. At a rental rate of $30 per acre annually for a contract term of 10 years. the authorized funding of $225 million over 3 years would divert 750.000 acres to more conserving uses. Without question. the program will vary greatly in its utility. cost per acre. and effectiveness from one region to another. However. H.R. 3457 provides a prudent and cautious start which the committee is anxious to have initiated. In summary. H.R. 3457 provides an integrated approach to protection of our Nations soil resourcesit deserves the support of the Members.e