107TH CONGRESS REPT. 107–191 "! 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Part 2 FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001 AUGUST 31, 2001.—Ordered to be printed Mr. COMBEST, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2646] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] This supplemental report includes additional committee positions and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate and shows the changes in existing law made by the bill (H.R. 2646), as reported, which was omitted in part 1 of the report submitted on August 2, 2001 (H. Rept. 107–191, pt. 1). This supplemental report is submitted in accordance with clause 3(a)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE POSITION Several of the statutory changes made by title II of H.R. 2646 are merely clarifying or simplifying the programs authorized under title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985. These statutory changes do not require—and the Committee does not expect—any changes in program administration. In order to ensure that the Committee’s expectation with regard to these provisions is clearly understood, the following additional committee views are included with regard to Title II of H.R. 2646. Sec. 221. Elimination of General Provisions This provision eliminates the Environmental Conservation Acre- age Reserve Program (‘‘ECARP’’) because it is redundant, unneces- sary, and USDA has not used its priority areas authority in pro- gram implementation. USDA has instead relied upon specific pri- ority area authority under the separate Title XII programs. Under- standing that this deletion will remove the ECARP reference to the phrase ‘‘soil, water and related natural resources,’’ the Committee notes that related resources, such as wildlife habitat, are ade- VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:08 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074932 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR191P2.000 pfrm07 PsN: HR191P2 2 quately addressed and included in the specific programs authorized by Title XII. Sec. 232. Enrollment In eliminating the priority area authority in section 1231(f), the Committee does not intend for the Secretary to administer the CRP without any priorities. Rather, in directing the Secretary to develop regulations to implement section 1231(i), the Committee intends that the Secretary shall develop a means by which some priority shall be given to applications proposing to address particularly im- portant environmental issues. In so doing, it is the intent of the Committee that the Secretary, in consultation with other appro- priate interested parties, shall focus on priority issues rather than specific geographic areas. In including the provision regarding the eligibility of expiring CRP contracts, it is the Committee’s intent that expiring CRP acre- age be eligible to re-enroll, not that it automatically be re-enrolled. Acreage with expiring contracts would still have to compete during general sign-ups with all other acreage being offered or meet the other eligibility requirements for enrollment in the continuous sign-up. Sec. 233. Duties of Owners and Operators With respect to managed grazing, limited haying and the instal- lation of wind turbines, the Committee expects that any such per- mitted activity will be done in a manner which is consistent with the overall goals of the Conservation Reserve Program. Sec. 242. Easements and Agreements USDA currently enrolls acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program either through easements (permanent or otherwise) or cost-share restoration. The Committee expects USDA to continue to enroll acres in these manners as appropriate, and is merely simplifying those statutory provisions in section 1237 to remove the reference to enrollment percentages, which are no longer relevant. Similarly, the change made to section 1237A is also simplifying the statute by removing redundant references to mowing and spraying, which are already habitat alterations under section 1237A(b)(2). The Committee notes that the statute, as rewritten, prohibits habitat alternation unless contained in the management plan, and the committee expects this to include mowing, grazing, and spraying of chemicals. Even though the Committee is deleting the mandatory require- ment for the Secretary to consult with the State Technical Com- mittee in developing a wetland restoration plan, the Committee notes that the Secretary maintains the discretionary authority to do so, and expects the Secretary to consult with the State Technical Committee when appropriate. Sec. 243. Duties of the Secretary Similarly, even though the Committee is deleting the mandatory requirement to consult with the Secretary of the Interior in award- ing easements, the Committee notes that Secretary continues to have the discretionary authority to do so, and expects the Secretary to consult the Secretary of Interior when appropriate for assistance VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 Sep 05, 2001 Jkt 074932 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR191P2.000 pfrm04 PsN: HR191P2 3 in determining the value of an agreement for protecting and en- hancing habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Sec. 252. Definitions The Committee notes that while wildlife habitat is not included in the definition of a structural practice, it is the intent of this Committee that the Secretary shall award, whenever possible, EQIP contracts in which incidental benefits to wildlife are also pro- duced. Sec. 255. Duties of the Producer This section deletes section 1240D(2) as unnecessary. The Com- mittee is unaware of this circular provision being used by USDA as authority in program administration, and notes that the provi- sion adds nothing to the authority of the Secretary in admin- istering EQIP. The Committee does not intend the deletion of this provision to impact in any way the Secretary’s authority to include appropriate terms and conditions in agreements entered into with producers under EQIP. Sec. 274. Grassland Reserve Program The Committee notes that the Secretary has the discretionary authority to consult with state fish and wildlife agencies in appro- priate circumstances to assist in determining the end of the nesting and brood rearing season for birds in the local area, and expects the Secretary to do so. The Committee also intends that necessary surface disturbances required by a management plan on a restored site are implicitly ex- cepted from the general prohibition on activities which would dis- turb the surface of the land, owing to the fact that the restored site has already been disturbed. Sec. 275. Farmland Stewardship Program The Committee notes that the Secretary will continue to have the discretionary authority to consult with State Technical Com- mittees, when appropriate, in determining whether a particular provision of a conservation program may be waived. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 23, 2001. Hon. LARRY COMBEST, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has pre- pared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jim Langley. Sincerely, DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director. Enclosure. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 Sep 05, 2001 Jkt 074932 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR191P2.001 pfrm04 PsN: HR191P2 4 H.R. 2646—Farm Security Act of 2001 Summary: H.R. 2646 would amend and extend through 2011 the major farm income support, land conservation, credit assistance, food assistance, trade promotion, marketing assistance, and rural development programs administered by the U.S. Department of Ag- riculture (USDA). CBO estimates that enactment of this legislation would increase direct spending by $1.9 billion in 2002, $33.4 billion over the 2002–2006 period, and $69.5 billion over the 2002–2011 period. Additional outlays occurring after 2011 would bring the total of new direct spending from the legislation to $73.1 billion. When combined with estimated spending under current law, enact- ment of H.R. 2646 would bring total spending to $35.1 billion in 2002, $203.1 billion over the 2002–2006 period, and $409.7 billion over the 2002–2011 period. Because enactment of the bill would af- fect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. The bill also would authorize discretionary appropriations for ex- isting and new programs for research and education, nutrition, trade promotion, rural development, credit assistance, and forestry initiatives. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions affecting discre- tionary spending would cost about $14.6 billion over the 2002–2006 period, and $37.4 billion over the next 10 years. The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). State, local, and trib- al governments would probably receive some of the assistance au- thorized by this bill. Any costs these governments might incur to comply with conditions of this assistance would be voluntary. H.R. 2646 would impose private-sector mandates as defined by UMRA. The bill would impose new assessments on importers of dairy products and U.S. producers of caneberries. The bill also would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to expand the reporting requirement now placed on manufacturers and persons who store dairy products. Based on information provided by industry sources and USDA, CBO estimates that the direct costs of those private- sector mandates would fall below the annual threshold for private- sector mandates established in UMRA ($113 million in 2001, ad- justed annually for inflation). Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budg- etary impact of the bill is shown in Table 1. The costs of this legis- lation fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and envi- ronment), 350 (agriculture), 450 (community and regional develop- ment), and 600 (income security).